.0^. \'^ "^^:.v^. 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 /. 
 
 M 
 
 
 "<° €P^ 
 
 C^/ /y 
 
 c^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 *^'". 4io 
 
 
 :/ 
 
 4 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 
 2.5 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 % 
 
 & 
 
 n 
 
 7] 
 
 ^a 
 
 
 ¥^ 
 
 
 om,. 
 
 '/ 
 
 m 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 ■i3 WESt MAIN StREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. )4580 
 
 (716) 873-4503 
 
 4 
 
 ,-\ 
 
 
 ^\ 
 
 
 
 <^>. ' ^^ 
 
 pl? 
 
 
 # 
 
 v^- 
 
&/ 
 
 V.A 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 <^> 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notss/Notes tachniquas at bibliographiquas 
 
 Tha Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may b« bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 fftprodiiction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked baiow. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculde 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates ard/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli^ avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Larpliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t^ fiimies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimentaires: 
 
 L'Instttut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restauries et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxe< 
 Pages ddcolories, tacheties ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachies 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality inigale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materis 
 Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 I I Pages damaged/ 
 
 |~~] Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 r^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 nTl Pages detached/ 
 
 rri Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I I Only edition available/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuiilet d'arrata, une pelure, 
 etc.. ont 4t6 filmdes & nouveau de facon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 14X 
 
 18X 
 
 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 SOX 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 7 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
Th« copy filmed h«r« has b—n reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 L^islature du Quebec 
 Quebec 
 
 L'ttxempiaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la 
 gAnirositi de: 
 
 L^islature du Quibec 
 Quebec 
 
 The images appearing here are the beet quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specificatione. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated imprea- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 IVIaps. plates, charts, etc.. mey be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposu/e are Timed 
 beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to 
 right and top to bottom, aa many frames aa 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Lee imegee suivantes ont 4t« reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin. compta tenu de la condition st 
 de la nettet* de I'exempiaire film*, ot en 
 conformity avec lea conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Lea exempiairee originaux dont la couverture an 
 papier eet imprimte sont filmte e» commenpant 
 par le premier plat at en terminant soit par la 
 derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'iilustration. soit par le second 
 plat, salon le eas. Tous les autrss •xampiairss 
 originaux sont film*s an commonqant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'tllustration et en tatminant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un dea symbc<ee suivants apparaitra sur la 
 demiAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 caa: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent .Itre 
 fiimte d dee taux de reduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour itre 
 reproduit en un seui clich*. il est film* * partir 
 de I'angle sup*rieur gauche, de gauche h droite. 
 et de haut en bea. en prenant le nombre 
 d'imeges n*cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 iliustrent la m*thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
-/- 
 
 DEBATE IN THE SENATE 
 
 ON THl BILL RELATING TO 
 
 MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. 
 
 {Reported by A. <i' Geo. C. Holland, Senate Reporters, Ottawa.) 
 
 MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S 
 SISTER BILL. 
 
 SECOND READING. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FERRIEK, moved the 
 second reading of Bill (30) « An Act to 
 legalize marriage with the sister of a 
 deceased wife." He said : I regret very 
 much that this Bill is not in the 
 hands of some other member better 
 qualified than I am to shew the pressing 
 necessity of now passing this- very impor- 
 tant measure. This Bill has been before 
 the House of Commons during the greater 
 part of this long session, and it lias come 
 up to the Senate passed by a large 
 majority of votes ; we, therefore, receive 
 it as the voi^^e of the'people, through their 
 representati\es, and I am satisfied that 
 there is a cry from every constituency in 
 this Dominion for relief from the grievous 
 disability now resting on the people of 
 Canada, and which, I trust, will be 
 removed by the passing of this Bill by 
 this hon. House. It has been said to 
 me, "let this Bill stand over until 
 another session." I ask every member of 
 this House who thinks that relief should 
 be given, why should the Senate postpone 
 the° Bill until next session 1 H cads of 
 
 households, lathers and mothers are dying 
 and hundreds of families are now lying 
 under great disabilities; surely this 
 higher branch of the Legislature will not 
 refuse to listen to the petitions now 
 before this House, but will at once 
 pass this Bill for their relief. I 
 question if ever there was a measure 
 before Parliament of this character on 
 which the public sentiment in its favor 
 was so united as it has been in the 
 House of Commons, Roman Catholics 
 and Protestants voting together for this 
 Bill of relief. I am not surprised that 
 one Roman Catholic Bishop should with- 
 hold his approval, and that the Metro- 
 politan, with other bishops in the Church 
 of England, should do the same. They 
 must uphold the Table of Affinity which 
 stands in the Prayer Book. But there 
 is a large class in the Church of England, 
 and a very large majority in all other 
 Protestant churches, which have a right 
 to be heard by us. Our best attention 
 should be given to the petitions now be- 
 fore this House in favor of this Bill, 
 praying that it may become law, a,nd 
 give relief from the disabilities to whicli 
 they are no\» subjected by the unscrip- 
 
2 
 
 tural ecclosiastical law which prevails, 
 especially in the code of juiispriitlence in 
 the Province of Qnohec. I believe that 
 if this Bill is lost in the Senate it will 
 raise a controv(;rsy between the bishops 
 and the laity, which will be very damag- 
 ing to the Christian character of Protest- 
 antism. The Roman Catholic Church 
 grants a dispensation to any of its peo- 
 l»le who wishes, to marry a sister of his 
 deceased wife, but their children 
 are still under the disabilities 
 of the civil law. But we 
 
 Protestants have the unyielding iron law 
 of affinity, enforced by the bishops, a law 
 which has no foundation in the Bible— 
 neither in the Old ror in the New Tes- 
 tament. This fact is now fully estab- 
 lished by the highest authorities 
 among the Jews and Christians of 
 this nineteenth century. Lord Hough- 
 ton, in a speech delivered in the 
 House of Lords, in May, 1879, on 
 moving the second reading of the Bill 
 for legalizing marriage with a deceased 
 ■wife's sister, said : — 
 
 " During this period our colonies have not 
 been silent, and to this fact I desire to draw 
 your Lordship's serious attention. South 
 Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South 
 Walep, Queensland, and Western Australia, 
 have passed acts legalizing these marriages, 
 A bill of the same nature has passed the 
 Lower House of New Zealand, and twice in 
 the Legislature of Nalal, which colony has 
 now, unfortunately, something else to think 
 Such marriages are practically legal in 
 
 of. 
 
 the whole Canadian dominion, the West In- 
 dies, and, it is believed, in the Channel 
 Islands." 
 
 It is evident that Lord Houghton thinks 
 wo are further advanced in the Dominion 
 on this question than we roally are. 
 Speaking of the feeling in England 
 amongst the Non-conformists, he said : — 
 " It should not be forgotten that all the 
 Non-conformist bodies, without the exception 
 of a single sect, are in favor of the Bill, and 
 what is the immense proportion they bear in 
 the Christian community of this country ?" 
 
 Further on he quoted from a letter that 
 appeared in tlie Standard newspaper, 
 which ends as follows : — 
 
 " I sincerely hope that something will be 
 done to remedy the painful position of thou- 
 sands of deserving families during the coming 
 session of Parliament, for, if not, I am con- 
 vinced that the question will be made very 
 prominent in the next General Election ; and 
 I would not support any member who would 
 not pledge himself to vote for the removal of 
 this oppressive law." 
 
 Tn concluding his remarks, on moving 
 the second reading of the Bill, Lord 
 Houghton said : — 
 
 " And now my Lords, I pray you to give a 
 second readmg to this Bill. If you do so, 
 you will relieve thousands of your fellow-citi- 
 zens, honest men and honest women, from a 
 deep sense of partial legislation and cruel in- 
 justice ; if you reject this Bill, you will force 
 on them the conviction that they might, like 
 yourselves, enjoy the great happiness of family 
 life with those they love best, without dis- 
 comfort to themselves or dishonor to their 
 oftspring, were it not for the intolerance of 
 the Church of England and the social preju- 
 dices of the House of Lords." 
 
 There has be?n so much discussion on 
 this subject, that I will conclude my re- 
 marks by citing a passage in a letter re- 
 ceived by Lord Houghton from the 
 eminent Oriental Scholar, Professor Max 
 Muller, who says : — 
 
 « How any Hebrew scholar could so mis 
 interpret Leviticus xviii., 18, as to make it a 
 prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's 
 sister is a puzzle to me. I know of one 
 analogous case only — the falsification of a 
 verse in the ' Veda,' by which it was turned 
 into a commandment for the burning of a 
 widow on the death of her husband." 
 
 Hon. Mr. DICKEY : I am sure the 
 House has listened with much interest 
 to the observations that have accom- 
 panied the introduction of this Bill by 
 my hon, friend ; and I may say for 
 myself, and the House will, I am quite 
 sure, agree, that it is a question which 
 affects the tenderest and holiest relations 
 that can obtain between man and 
 woman. I, therefore, desire to approach 
 the discussion of the subject in the rev- 
 erend spirit that ought to animate every- 
 one in dealing with so serious and im- 
 portant a matter. My hon. friend has 
 furnished us with very little argument 
 of his own, and, as to the value of 
 « inions expressed in another place, I 
 a— sorry that he had not been impartial, 
 and given us a little of the argument 
 on the other side. I think that would 
 have been but a fair measure of justice ; 
 but, taking the matter as it stands, the 
 hon. gentleman tells us that a large por- 
 tion — hundreds of [people, in fact— -in 
 England are waiting for the passing of 
 this Bill. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FERRIER: I said from 
 every constituency of this Dominion. 
 
 Hon. Mr. DICKEY : My hon. friend 
 stated that also, but he read a speech 
 
 f 
 
 \ 
 
 X 
 
which alluded to the fact that the Bill 
 was desired by a gieat many people in 
 England. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FERRIER : I said, at the 
 beginning, that I was going to read, from 
 a speech of Lord Houghton's, delivered 
 in the House of Lords, a few reinaks in 
 accordance with the views I endeavored 
 to lay before the House. It is evident 
 
 that I have not 
 exceedingiy 
 
 am 
 
 been understood, and I 
 unfortunate in havmg 
 assented to take charge of this Bill. 
 
 Hon. Mr. DICKEY— I do not com- 
 plain of the interruption, but I am free 
 to say that my hon. friend expressed 
 himself in such terms as not to leave any 
 doubt in the mind of any penson as to 
 his meaning. So that, I think, any 
 apology for the Bill not having fallen 
 into better Lands ia quite unnecessary, 
 for I am sure no motion in regard to a 
 bill could come with greater effect than 
 from the hon. gentleman who has moved 
 the second reading of the Bill before the 
 House. But the hon. gentleman has 
 stated, and it has been stated elsewhere, 
 that hundreds of people are affected by 
 this Bill. I dare say that is the case, 
 and I have no doubt that has been at the 
 bottom of the agitation on this question 
 in England — that hundreds of people 
 have violated the law in this respect, 
 and they wish to have an act passed to 
 set them right again, and the hon. gen- 
 tleman, instead of appealing to the sym- 
 pathy of the House, would better have 
 subserved his cause by shewing the 
 reasons for which they ask for the repeal 
 of the law. The hon. gentleman says 
 that a good many Jews and Christians of 
 the nineteenth century are agreed 
 that there is no scriptural argu- 
 ment against this Bill. Unfortu- 
 nately, we live in an age when we 
 have had to find out, to our sorrow, 
 that even in the Christian world a great 
 many questions have been taken up and 
 treated in a very different light trom 
 what it has always been considered they 
 should be dealt with. This Bill may 
 involve a reference tq one of the five 
 books of Moses. My hon. friend knows 
 perfectly well that one of the bishops of 
 the Church of England has published a 
 work in which he has struck at the very 
 foundation of these five books. In the 
 light of modern science and modern 
 
 learning, not content with atfcetnptitlg td 
 upset the account of the creation in 
 Genesis, Bishop Colenso sneers it the 
 inspired narrative of the number of 
 Israelites that went out of Egypt. Cer- 
 tain divines and learned men of the 
 l)resent day have taken this view ; but 
 that should not have much weight with 
 this House, because my hon. friend must 
 be aware that for 4,000 years, so 
 far as I know, both Jew and Oiiristian, 
 under the old and the n^vr .dispensations, 
 have agreed that these Levitical injunc- 
 tions as to marriages, like the moral law, 
 were binding on Jew as well as on 
 Christian. Ihat is the position I take, 
 and if such opinions are rife in this 
 nineteenth crjntury, my hon. friend 
 should consider the position he is taking, 
 and the effect it may ha*'e upon the be- 
 liefs of others — not upon our beliefs, be' 
 cause I assume they are settled ; but if 
 we are to have the beliefs of others unset- 
 tled upon these points, by bringing up 
 prominently the opinions of some Jews 
 and Christiana of the present day, as 
 compared with those who have had an 
 unbroken opinion on this point for 
 thousands of years, I think my hon. 
 friend must see where all this will land 
 us. The hon. gentleman speaks of the 
 voice of the people as expressed through 
 their representatives. We are all familiar 
 with that argument. We know what 
 its effect is, but I can only meet my hon. 
 friend by pointing to the course taken 
 last year on a matter in which the voice 
 of the people had also been expressed in 
 an unmistakable way. I allude to the 
 Insolvency Repeal Bill. That view was 
 expressed then in this House, but the 
 Senate decided then, as I trust they will 
 decide to-day, that, although that was 
 apparently the opinion of the people, yet 
 it was wise to postpone that measure for 
 another year, however inconvenient it 
 might be, in order, if possible, to obtain 
 a true expression of the sentiments 
 of the country, with the understanding 
 that, if that expression were continued in 
 the direction it was before, that it should 
 have its effec*;. I opposed that con- 
 tention, because I was in favor of the 
 immediate repeal of the law, looking to 
 the inconvenience that would result, and 
 did result, from its continuance. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FERRIER— And you were 
 quite right. 
 
Hon. Mr. DICKEY — I must assume 
 tliat tlje House was rij^ht in taking time 
 to see t)ie result, and I think tlie Senate, 
 on that occasion, performed one of its pe- 
 culiar function8,iu checking hasty legis- 
 lation, and giving time for the country, 
 and for the other branch of the Legis- 
 lature to decide upon the question. I do 
 not propose to enter at length into the 
 theological arguments of this subject. I 
 have already said it has been held as 
 a rule in the church, whether under the 
 old or new dispensations, that this is the 
 construction of Leviticus, otherwise we 
 would have supposed we would not have 
 had it in the different prayer books of 
 the churches. That is a singular coa- 
 sensus of opinion, and it applies to all 
 those Levitical injunctions and the moral 
 law, including the Ten Commandments, 
 not to any directions which apply pecu- 
 liarly to Jewish observances that have 
 passed away. Reference has been made 
 to the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of 
 Leviticus. I do not intend at present 
 entering into, even if I felt competent to 
 do so, a critical analysis of that verse ; 
 but I think I will shew sufficiently from 
 the whole tenor of the directions given 
 in that chapter, that the weight of 
 opinion is most decidedly and distinctly 
 in favor of the present construction 
 of the law, which is to prevent 
 marriage with a deceased wife's sister. 
 I wish to draw the attention of the 
 House to this argument, that the general 
 injunction in that chapter, "Thou shalt 
 not approach thy next of kin," is given 
 first that we shall not marry the next of 
 kin, and then there are particular cases 
 specified in which it is not lawful to 
 marry. The House will be surprised, or 
 so le members of it, at all events, may 
 be surprised, when I state the curious 
 fact that there is no particular injunction 
 which prevents a man from marrying his 
 own daughter, and yet it might be said, 
 with an expression of horror, " you do 
 not mean to say that that chapter admits 
 of it?" I say no such thing. I say the 
 chapter rejects it, and I will shew 
 how : by the seventh verse, the son is 
 prevented from marrying his mother, 
 and, in the parallel case, the father 
 is prohibited from marrying his 
 daughter, although it is not 
 mentioned. The rule is given as to one, 
 and it obtains in all parallel eases, and 
 
 this is one of them. There is another 
 extraordinary parallel, in which a man is 
 prohibited, by the 14th verse,from marry- 
 ing the wife of his father's brother, that 
 is to say his paternal aunt, but there is 
 no injunction against marrying his 
 maternal aunt. Whyl Because the 
 two cases are parallel, and the one 
 governs the other, following the general 
 rule that a man should not marry with 
 near cf kin. Then, in like manner, with 
 regard to this very point, marriage with 
 a deceased wife's sister, the IGtJi verse 
 implies that a man may not marry his 
 brother's widow. That is a case 
 exactly parallel to a man marrying his 
 deceased wife's sister. Some hon. mem- 
 bers may give expression to the opinion 
 that, in the one case, there is a distinct 
 or absolute jirohibition, as there is 
 with regard to the widow of a deceased 
 brother, and that if there is doubt 
 about one point, it is quite clear as to 
 the other, I wish to call the attention 
 of the House to this fact : that, following 
 out the same rule of interpretation 
 against marrying with a maternal aunt, 
 and a man's marriage with his own 
 daughter, we come, by an inevitable 
 process of reasoning, without any refer- 
 ence to this eighteenth verse, to the con- 
 struction that, where a man is prohibited 
 from marriage with the widow of a 
 deceased brother, he is, in like manner 
 prohibited from marrying with the sister 
 of his decdased wife. That being the 
 case, I need not pursue that argument 
 further, except with this single remark : 
 that the House will perceive that the 
 question of marriage with the widow of 
 his father's brother — that is with his 
 aunt — is a much more remote connec- 
 tion, certainly, than that with the 
 sister of the wife of his own bosom. 
 I do not propose to dive further into the 
 depths of the theological part of the 
 question, I prefer, rather, to call the seri- 
 ous attention cf the House to the domestic 
 and social aspect of the subject. What 
 is the situation ; present? The sister 
 of the wife is equally the sister of the 
 husband, because, by marriage, they twain 
 have become one flesh. We know that 
 the result is the most free and unre- 
 stricted intercourse that can obtain 
 between brother and sister, and the most 
 perfect confidence. That is the case 
 under the existing law, and I 
 
 t 
 
4- 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 I 
 
 argument 
 
 way, 
 
 gentlemen 
 
 neeil liartlly sny what would 
 be the nvsult wore it changed 
 as proposed. I have already 
 said that tlio most tender relation in life 
 between tlie sexes is tliat between man 
 and wife. Next to that, perhaps, and 
 apart from the question of children, is 
 that which a man bears to his own 
 mother ; then comes his love for his sis- 
 ter, and next to that, surely, and in most 
 cases equally with that, is the love he 
 bears and the affection he lavishes 
 upon his sister-in-law — the sister, 
 not by nature, but the sister by 
 the law of God and man. 
 This, hon. gentlemen, is the situation of 
 affairs during life, in sickness and in 
 health ; and what is the case after^the 
 wife's death, and who, I may ask, so fit 
 to care for the children of her deceased 
 sister as the surviving sister 1 That 
 may be applied in another 
 but let me call the attention of hon. 
 to it as it stands : if, after 
 death, the sister-in-law is put on the loot- 
 ing of a stranger, eligible to marry the 
 widower of her sister, what woman of 
 modesty or delicacy of feeling would 
 allow herself to be placed in the position 
 of taking charge of the household and 
 living under the same roof with the 
 widower 1 That would at once deprive 
 the children of the tender protection and 
 care which they now have under the ex- 
 isting law, as is happily the case in 
 thousands of homes whei'e a sister-in- 
 law takes tlie place of a mother to her 
 deceased sister's children, who would 
 otherwise be without a mother's care. I 
 object, therefore, to that portion of the 
 Bill as being most destructive to domestic 
 happiness. All those social ^objections 
 apply with tenfold force to the other 
 clause of the Bill, which allows a man to 
 marry the widow of a deceased brother. 
 In either case, we cannot shut our eyes 
 to the possible temptation to get rid of a 
 vnte who stands between the husband 
 and the sister, who has been thrown for 
 years into close contact with him, and 
 who, if this Bill passes, will be eligible 
 to take her sister's place. I shrink from 
 the consequences of such legislation, and 
 implore the House to pause, at all events 
 for a time, ere they pass such a sweeping 
 revolution in the social and marriage 
 customs of the land, hallowed by long ages 
 of usage, and intimately associated with 
 
 the religious sentiment of the country. 
 I humbly submit that we are bound to 
 pay some deference to that sentiment, 
 and it appears tome that the very smallest 
 expression of deference that we can adopt 
 would be, at all events, to give the 
 people who have always considered it to 
 have been the law of the land, for at least 
 1800 years of the Christian era, an o[y- 
 portunity of considering it, and being 
 heard upon the question. A great many 
 petitions have been before the House for 
 and against this measure. It is, per- 
 haps, difficult, and I do not knov/ that 
 any hon. member has taken the trouble 
 to analyse these petitions day after day 
 as they come in, to consider them pro- 
 perly. The effect of the amendment 
 which I propose to submit, and which I 
 hope the House will accept, would be to- 
 give Parliament an opportunity of con- 
 sidering those petitions carefully and- 
 fully, and of weighing their representa- 
 tions, and also to give -.m opportunity 
 to the country to express an unmistak- 
 able opinion on this important question. 
 Because, although my hon. friend may 
 speak of people in various parts of the 
 country who desire to have this law, I 
 can tell him of thousands and tens of 
 thousands of people who will be shocked 
 if it be passed. In my opinion, it is not 
 the bounden duty of this House to give 
 force to the agitation which has already 
 been commenced on on« side of the ques- 
 tion, without, at all events, paying some 
 little deference to the opinion of the 
 other. It is the active, aggressive people 
 who always make the most noise, and 
 these are the people who possibly have 
 broken the law, and who, through 
 their friends in Parliament, en- 
 deavor to excite the symi)athie3 of 
 the House to their ends. Under the 
 circumstances, I trust hon. members will 
 pause, and will, at all events, act in the 
 same direction as we acted last year, t>..d 
 give the country an opportunity of 
 making known their opinions upon this 
 law. Certainly after the experience of 
 so many hundred years, no harm can 
 be done by giving an opportunity of 
 seeing what the public feeling is on 
 a matter that deeply affects the reli- 
 gious sentiment of the country. There- 
 fore I hope the House will pardon 
 me when I move, seconded by Hon. Mr. 
 Bureau : — 
 
I 
 
 T 
 
 "That tho said Uill bo ' ot now read a 
 Ht'cond time, but that it be nmolved that it is 
 inexpediont to proceed witli this meaRuro 
 during tho preHont SoHHion, in order to afford 
 time to conHidcr tiio various petitions to tlio 
 Senate for and against the Bill, and to ascer- 
 tain the Rcntiincntof tho people on the ques- 
 tion at tho next session of Parliament." 
 
 Hon. Mr. PFNNY.— It is not with- 
 out a feeling of diffidence tliat I second 
 the Bill that haa been introduced by my 
 hon. friend opposite (Mr. Ferrier), and 
 my diffidence is due to the fact that I 
 api>reciate, to some extent, tho objections 
 raised by my hon. friend from Amherst 
 (Mr. Dickey), yet I have been requested 
 by friends, to whose interests and desires 
 I attach a great deal of importance, to 
 urge upon the Senate the reasons why I 
 think this Bill should pass. Yielding to 
 that desire on their part, and believing 
 that the Bill should become law, not- 
 withstanding the objections which occur 
 to some minds, I do what I can to pro- 
 mote what I believe to be a very 
 valuable reform. I am more diffident 
 about taking this course, however, be- 
 cause I know there is a large number of 
 my friends, professing a different faith 
 from my own, in the Province from 
 which I come, who will vote for the 
 amendment. At the same time, while J 
 dislike to dissever myself from the great 
 body of my fellow-provincialists, I am 
 happy to know that, in this case, there is 
 no odium theologicum to be drawn be- 
 tween us on account of our difference 
 of opinion on this occasion, because, 
 although Lara not a Catholic theologian, 
 and a very poor theologian of any 
 kind, I know that the Church of 
 Rome and the Pope do not pretend 
 to set aside the laws of God. The 
 dispensations granted to Catholics are 
 not from the laws of God, nor from the 
 laws of nature, as I understand it, but 
 from laws of a di.°ciplinary character, 
 which have been provided on account of 
 expediency, or some other causes, which 
 do not go so wide or deep as the laws of 
 God or nature. This enables me to 
 reply to some remarks which fell from 
 the hon. Senator from Amherst. He 
 has stated that, for eighteen hundred 
 years or more, the prohibition of mar- 
 riages of this kind has been the universal 
 law of Christendom. I think he is 
 wrong in that, because dispensations 
 have always been allowed by the Qhurch 
 
 of Rome, and, until a very recent ])eriod, 
 though such marriag(tH were voidable in 
 P^ngland, they were not absolutely void. 
 Mow, I take it for granted, that mar- 
 riages which tho Church of Rome per- 
 mitted in any case, were not marriages 
 that they considered against the law of 
 God, and I take it also that, whilo tho 
 Church of Kngland jwrmitted such mar- 
 riages to be made, and considererl them 
 to be practically good until voided by 
 some court of justice, it could not regard 
 them with that abhorrence which tho 
 hon. gentleman from Amherst speaks of. 
 With regard to the |)assages from 
 Leviticus which he has quoted, he must 
 recollect that there is another ])assage 
 which goes in the direct teeth of them 
 — the passage which obliges a man, 
 under certain circumstances, to marry 
 the wife of his deceased brother. 
 Therefore, while such marriages may 
 have been considered inexpedient or 
 undesirable from other causes, yet there 
 ia nothing absolutely against them in the 
 laws of God or of nature. I am not 
 addressing myself ))articularly to advo- 
 cate the Catholic view of it — there are 
 gentlemen in tl'is Chamber who are 
 far better qualified to do so — but I may 
 remark that it seem.s to me this law 
 would restore to the bishops of that 
 church a power of which they have been 
 deprived by the Code — the power to 
 grant dispensations, which *ould be 
 followed by valid marriages. As the 
 law stands, their dispensations are, for 
 practical purposes, null, because, while 
 they can still grant them, very few per- 
 sons would like to subject themselves to 
 the disabilities which the civil law, not- 
 withstanding the dispensation, would 
 bring upon their childien. That view of 
 the question was pressed veiy strongly by 
 Cardinal Wiseman, in addressing the 
 Commissioners appointed by the House of 
 Commons in England to inquire into 
 this subject. However, I do not care to 
 go into that part of the question, be- 
 cause I do not presume to instruct 
 gentlemen of another faith on a 
 matter that concerns themselves. Turn- 
 ing to the question as ic affects all 
 creeds, and particularly the people 
 of my own Province, I think there are 
 circumstances of very great hardship and 
 inconvenience, which the Senate should 
 consider before they reject or postpone 
 
 r 
 
I 
 
 ■r 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 ^ 
 
 this Bill. Previous to 1835 the luw in 
 Kngliitid was tliis : hucIi tniiniiijjti.s wcm 
 not void, niilesH declareil ho l»y a Court 
 of JuHtico during the lives of the niiiiriod 
 persona, and tlio childron were legiti- 
 mate Tiiat is the law as it was intro- 
 duced into Ontario, and as it now exists 
 in that Province, and as there is no 
 ecclesiastical court to void thisso mar- 
 riages, they are absolutely good to all in- 
 tents and purposes. But ])erson8 marry- 
 ing in that way, in perfectly good faith, 
 intending to live in Ontario all their 
 lives, may find it necessary to move into 
 a Province where the marriage is null. 
 They cannot plead that it is an absolutely 
 good marriage ; it is only good until 
 voided, and when, they go to Quebec, it 
 becomes a bad marriage. I am informed 
 by gentlemen learned in the law that, 
 in the Lower Provinces, they liave a 
 Court which can perform all that the 
 Ecclesiastical Courts could formerly 
 do in England, and these mar- 
 riages could, therefore, be voided 
 there, also, though it is not likely 
 that it would be done. Now, that is a 
 great hardship to persons married in 
 that way, many of whom are as respect- 
 able, in every sense of the word, as our- 
 selves, and it seems to me to be the duty 
 of Parliament to relieve them from the 
 position in which they are placed. I did 
 not propose to quote Cardinal Wiseman 
 at any length, and I should not have 
 done so if it had not been for the demand 
 of ray hon. friend (Mr. Dickey) to know 
 what reason there was for passing this 
 law — what practical inconvenience was 
 suffeied by the people at present, that 
 this measure was necessary to relieve 
 them from. What I am going to read 
 is not on a question of religious doctrine, 
 but of fact. It is a question treated of 
 by a prelate, who, I suppose, was as well 
 informed on the matter he talked of 
 before the Committee of Parliament as 
 any man could be. This is the reply of 
 Cardinal Wiseman to one of the ques- 
 tions put to him — of course, what he 
 says applies immediately to England ; 
 but, no doubt, to a great extent, it will 
 apply here also. He says : 
 
 " It has generally been in the muldle 
 classes, and among tbT poor. Tn the middle 
 classes it generally results from the sister 
 having lived, perhaps tor some years, in the 
 family with the wile, the health of the wife 
 perhaps being delicate. Tho wife dies, and 
 
 loaves a , >ung family ; the hr.sbund ha« ids 
 buHinoKH to attend to, and lias no one to Uxka 
 care of liis cliildieii ; and tlie istt r-in law haH 
 no otiier shelter— protjably bus lost her 
 parents, or lias been living for many years In 
 her sister's bouse. I had an instance where 
 she bail been living seventeen years in tlio 
 family, and bad been a second motlier to tho 
 cliildren. The case ia very trying for both 
 piirties. There is an attoebmeut naturally 
 between them, from having lived so long to- 
 gether. To bring a stnin^rer into the house 
 would probablv be disturbing the peace and 
 happiness of the little society. The children 
 are attached to their aunt ; and it appears 
 altogether the most natural arrangement for 
 their happiness, as well as to prevent the sin 
 probably of cohabitation witiiout marriage, 
 that a dispensation should he granti^d. That, 
 I should say, is the history of nine out of ten 
 of the cases which I have had to deal with. 
 In the lower ranks it is generally a case of 
 absolute poverty. The sister, if sent away, is 
 turned into the streets ; the man himself 
 could not pay lor a servant ; he, perliaps, is 
 too poor to expect anyone else to marry him ; 
 be is getting old , and tlio parties are thrown 
 together in such a way that it is advisable 
 that they should be married, otherwise it 
 would end in cohabitation without marriage. 
 Those are the ordinary cases." 
 Now, it is not T, but a prelate whose 
 worth is known all over the world, who 
 has given evidence there that is quite 
 conclusive on the problem presented by 
 my hon. friend (Mr. Dickey) as to 
 whether this law is required. It is a 
 rather curious circumstance, referring to 
 the law as it stands in England now, 
 that the prohibition of such marriages 
 arose out of an attemi)t to relieve the 
 public from the partial prohibition then 
 existing. I take the account of this 
 e[)isode in the history of the subject 
 from Lord Houghton's admirable 
 speech :— 
 
 " This state of things continued down to 
 the reign of William IV, when, in 1 835, special 
 attention was called to the subject by a Bill 
 brought in by Lord Lyndhurst, for the pur- 
 pose of validating such marriages. Although 
 this measure may have been set in motion to 
 meet a special case, it was intended as a mea- 
 sure of general relief, and only in consequence 
 of the urgency of that case, in which every 
 day was deemed of importance by the parties 
 immediately concerned, was the opposition 
 weak in itself, but fortified by private consid- 
 erations, met by the insertion of a clause 
 declaring all such marriages ])rior to the 
 passing of the Bill valid, and all similar 
 marriages in the future void. This clause was 
 rejected by the House of Commons, and the 
 Bill BO amended, came up again to this House, 
 when the clause was re-inserted ; and, as it 
 was late in the session— ever3'one knows 
 what happens at the end of a session— the 
 
^K 
 
 ion 
 
 wmmmm 
 
 mmmm 
 
 8 
 
 Bill WI18 ftllovvcd to (iftHH with tliiM olinoxioiiK 
 clauHM, but with iin iiiHU-rtiikiiit; iH^twuon L«ii(l 
 LyndhniKt nnd other puitieM iiitt-rcHtod in thu 
 matter, tliiit this liniltatiori Nhoiild b(^ removed 
 In the ('nMuinK HeHHion. And natural enoiiuli 
 would have heen thiH expectation, even with- 
 out any jtrivatj an'ocnient. For wlmt. my 
 LordH, waH the moral poMitloii to wliich the 
 lIouHe and tlie country were committed hy th<! 
 pasKiuK of that Act 7 The LeniMlature declared 
 that Huch marri(ii,'eH, after u certain date, were 
 to bo unlawful, and in thoreli|riouHaHi)cct Bin- 
 ful, and yet they were niado obliKatory on all 
 who liad contrac'ted them up to that date. 
 ]$y one portion of that Act, rurliament placed 
 u certain number of peraonH in a jioHition in 
 which, if they camo to conHider theHe mar- 
 riages wrong and void, they could be enforced 
 Upon them by an action for the restitution 
 of conjugal rights: by another clauHo in the Hame 
 Act, Parliament declared them void ab initio, 
 ana by implication sinful. There neither was, 
 nor is there in fact, in the statute book of any 
 country in the world an Act so inconsistent in 
 its provisions, so roimgnant to common sense, 
 and so shocliing to tho first dictates of 
 morality." 
 
 The Bill, tlioioforo, actually validated all 
 tho marriages in question before that 
 time, and declared ail future marriages 
 of that description void. As to the 
 amendment that has been proposed by 
 my hon. friend from Amherst, it seems 
 to me that this is one of those questions 
 that almost all of us must know as much 
 of now as we shall know next year. For 
 my own part, I believe that if it is pro- 
 per to pass the Bill at all, it should be 
 jmssed now. I am acquainted with 
 many respectable families in Lower 
 Canada, some of whose names, if I were 
 to mention them, would be known to 
 all who hear me as those of persons high 
 in the public service, whose children are, 
 in point of law, degraded by bastardy. 
 Although that is not often thrown into 
 their teeth, and no person respects them 
 any the less for their legal position, yet, 
 in case of the disposition of proj)erty, 
 very great evils might arise from it, as 
 I believe really happened in tho case 
 which induced the hon. gentleman in 
 the other House to introduce this 
 measure. Tn that casf^, I am told, the 
 man and wife, who had been married 
 after being granted a dispensation from 
 Rome, and who supposed their marriage 
 was valid, found that their children could 
 not inherit from their grandfather. 
 Such cases must occur frequently, and I 
 think this House should prevent such 
 inconveniences from arising. 
 
 J[oii. Mr. MILIiER— r <lo not intenfF 
 to enter at any length into tho discuHsion 
 of tliiH important 'jucstion, Secauso I 
 consider it has already been so fully de- 
 bated, not only in Parlia!n<uit, but in 
 tiio press, that it is impossible to throw 
 any new light upon it. [ am Hure that 
 every gentiomiui wlio hears nin has read 
 and thought sufliciontly on tho subject 
 to have made up his mind as to tho 
 coui-se which ho will adopt on the pies- 
 ent oc asion. I desire, however, to state 
 my reasons brietly for tho vote which I 
 sliall give upon this Bill. I may say 
 that so far as tho first j)ortion of tho 
 first clause of this Bill is concerned — tho 
 j)art which is intended to legalize tho 
 marriage of [a mail with liia deceased 
 wife's sister — I am not opposed to it, 
 and if there was any necessity tor haste, 
 I should have no hesitation in voting for 
 the legalization of such raamagos ; but 
 I do not conceive that there is any im- 
 perative necessity, in the interest of the 
 general public, to take hasty action upon 
 a question deeply affecting the fabric of 
 society, and one which should be dealt 
 with in this House wii,h the greatest 
 l)os8ible deliberation. I believe also, 
 that there is no instance on record in any 
 British legislature where a mea- 
 sure of this kind has passed 
 upon its first introduction. Certainly, 
 in England it has been brought several 
 times before Parliament, and, although 
 it has of late yeara generally passed in 
 the House of Commons, it has never 
 succeeded in obtaining the approval and 
 consent of the House of Lords. In the 
 several colonies of Australia in which a 
 measure of this kind has become law, it 
 has passed after more than one applica- 
 tion for such legislation, and, in some 
 cases, the Bill, when reserved for the 
 consideration of the Queen, has been 
 vetoed by Her Majesty, and had to be 
 passed a second time by the Legislature 
 before being sanctioned. I have seen 
 nothing to convince me that there is luiy 
 necessity for haste in this matter, and, 
 when I reflect that a very large and re- 
 spectable body of people in this country 
 have memorialized the Senate merely to 
 delay this measure, which has been 
 sprung upon Parliament without any 
 previous notice or any agitation for it in 
 the press of the country, until this Bill 
 was brought before the House of Com- 
 
 'V 
 
 ¥# 
 
rnotis, T, for ono, fi(>l illspoRoil to piiy tho 
 j^rciitest roHpcc't to tluur rtiproHeiitiitioiiH. 
 I find also that, in anotlitii' very larj^ft 
 and important rcliijiouH body, divid(Ml 
 coutiHi^ls prevail with nsgard to tho do- 
 tailH of Hiich an onactnient, and, theiofon*, 
 I prefer to allow time to elapHO before 
 wo take an irrotrievablo Htop on thi.s 
 qucHtion, and until wo 8go whether these 
 ditlbrences of opinion, which now pre- 
 vail, can be reconciled ; I refwat, if nmUn- 
 ordinary circunistunces, uiiy presRing 
 necessity could bo shown mo for the 
 l)assing of this Bill, I shovdd be prepared 
 to vote for it, if tho measure went no 
 further than legalizing tho marriage of a 
 man with tho sister of his deceased wife. 
 But this Bill goes a far greater length ; 
 it [)roposes to legalize tho marriage of a 
 man with the widow of his deceased 
 brother. Some hon. gentlemen contend 
 that tho one case is the corollory of the 
 other. To that opinion I desire to enter 
 an emphatic protest. The two cases are 
 not . imilar, especially when, in the latter 
 case, there is offspring by tho first mar- 
 nago. There isa difference in thetwocases, 
 clearly marked by natural laws, which 
 not only affect the human family, but 
 also animals of a lower oi der of creation, 
 and which are well understood by those 
 who have made a study of such sulyects. 
 I say that, in relation to these two classes, 
 where tho deceased brother's widow has 
 borne children by the first marriage, the 
 circumstances are changed altogether, 
 and physiological objections arise which, 
 to my mind, it is impossible to overcome. 
 It is true, as staled by my hon. friend 
 from Alma (Mr. Penny) in his 
 ingenious advocacy of the Bill, 
 that, under tho old law, a man was 
 commanded to marry his brother's wife 
 under certain circumstances. That was 
 where the brother died without issi;e, 
 but the natural inference to be drawn 
 from that command is, that where child- 
 ren had been begotten by the first mar 
 riage, it was wrong that any such 
 connection should exist. I am opposed, 
 comp" tely, to tliLs leading feature of the 
 Bill, and for this reason, and the other 
 I'oasons I have already given, I shall 
 vote for tho amendment. I feel .some- 
 what awkwardly situated, I admit, in 
 the position which 1 occupy. I intend 
 to vote for the amendment of my hon. 
 friend from Amherst (Mr. Dickoy), and, 
 
 still, I do not think that the nrgiinionts 
 he has used against the first portion of 
 the Bill are at all sutHcient to prev«mt, 
 on some future occasion, the legalizing 
 of marriage with a deceased wiftt's sister. 
 I am unwilling, however, to take now, 
 an irr«-i.riovable step, ii. the face of tho 
 oppuHttitiiL that has been excited in the 
 coinitry against this measure, and in 
 view of the f ict that no notice was given 
 th'it this Bill was intended to be intro- 
 duced in Parliament this session. 
 With the <lesin\ therefore, of allowing 
 the fullest investigation, in order that the 
 settled opinion of the country may 
 \m had upon this grave (luestion, 
 which will have an important bearing on 
 c. ,ocit>l system, and which is, therefore, 
 ono upon which this body is expected to 
 act with deliberation, I feel it to be the 
 special duty and function of this branch 
 of Parliament to interpose its authority, 
 in order to prevent unnecessary haste ; 
 and I shall, therefore vote for the amend- 
 ment of my hon friend from Amherst. 
 
 Hon. Mr. ALLAN — In relation to 
 the Bill now before the House, and which 
 I earnestly hope tho Houro will defer 
 taking any final action upon, for this 
 session at all events, I do not propose to 
 argue tho question on theological 
 grounds, although I think it is right to 
 preface what I have to say otherwise, with 
 tho simple declaration that I do con- 
 scientiously believe that in such a matter 
 as tho law of marriage human law must 
 rest upon the sanction of Divine law. 
 If this principle be not admitted, I know 
 not what safeguards can, for any length 
 of time, be interposed to the passions or 
 tho caprices of individuals who may seek 
 to bring about still further changes from 
 which all of us, I am sure, whether opposed 
 to or in favour of the present Bill, would 
 recoil with dismay. In regard to the 
 changes in tho marriage laws, sought to 
 be introduced by the present Bill, 1 am 
 entirely against them, and more especi- 
 ally am I opposed to the clause particu- 
 larly referred to by my hon. friend from 
 Richmond, which legalizes the marriage 
 of a man with the widow of a deceased 
 brother. I would not, of course, call in 
 question for one moment the sincerity of 
 those who hold opposite views, or pre- 
 sunio to reflect in any way upon the 
 have led the hon. gentle- 
 charge of this Bill, ta- 
 
 motives which 
 man, who has 
 
10 
 
 At the same pulilic meeting. 
 
 was held not very long iigo — I *;hink 
 
 which 
 in 
 March last — in St, James' Hall, London, 
 another gentleman, a Mr. Miller, a 
 Queen's Counsel and Railway Commis- 
 sioner, and Deputy Grand Master of the 
 Orynge Lodges, argued that the existing 
 marriage law rested on the clear prin- 
 ciple of equality of relationship by blood 
 and relationship by marriage, and urged 
 that even grani,ing, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that such unions as those with a 
 deceased wife's sister were allowable by 
 the Word of God, still, in the interests 
 of society, and thobi of onr families, a 
 prudent legislature would refuse to le- 
 
 galize 
 
 puch 
 
 Tiring it forward in this House. Indeed, 
 I am sure that the highest compliment 
 that he could recei ^ was paid to 
 him by the promotera of th's Bill 
 in asking him to take charge of ifc, 
 because they know his position, both in 
 rmblic life and the religious world, to ba 
 such that anything coming from lura 
 would be listened to with the greatest 
 respect. In moving the second reading 
 of the Bill, my hon. friend enfcrcod his 
 arguments by reference to several 
 authorities, whom he, no doubt, thought 
 might have weight with the House, 
 quoting specially from speeches delivered 
 OP this subject in England. I shall, 
 therefore, claim the indulgence of the 
 House to make one or two fdlusionr to 
 speeches in support of my own view of 
 the matter, and, in doing so, I shall quote 
 only the opinions of laymen, for the 
 reason that I i^ish to counteract the 
 strange idea held by some of the pro- 
 moters of these proposed changes, that 
 the objections to them are all of an 
 ecclesiastical or i 'leological character, in 
 which laymen have little conce, a or in- 
 terest. The first authority I shall quote 
 is the Earl of Shaftesbury, a nobleman 
 whofjO name, I know, is familiar to the 
 promoter of the Bill, and which is a 
 
 household word in England in Iconnec- this project, where is he to stop 7 
 tion With every good or benevolent 
 work. This is what he says : — 
 
 " When the question ot legalizing marriage 
 with a deceased wife's sister was first pro- 
 pounded in the House of Ccmmons, 1 resisted 
 it to the utmost of my {\biiity. I did so 
 mainly on the ground, that such a change 
 would dietv.rb, pad, indeed, annihilate, raany 
 of the existing conditions of social and do- 
 mestic life. The husband and sister of the 
 wife ^ould then stand in different relfiticis 
 to each other, aud necessarily — reservo, 
 jealousy, intriguo, with all their many and 
 serious cou'. >|uence8, wouH prevail in many 
 families where the existing law bow gives 
 freedom and safety," 
 
 Lord Hatherly^ better known as Vice- 
 Chancellor Sir William Page Wood, 
 spoke in even stronger language at a 
 public meeting the other day. He 
 said : — 
 
 " That altl:v>ugh, while in the House of 
 Commons, he had not shrunk from advocating 
 changes oT vnry cousideiiibie mHgnituile, both 
 in the Church and in 'he State, he was not 
 prepared to take part in what ho believed 
 would be the bcginniuj^ of n social revolution 
 — trenching upon and invading the sanctity 
 • of liomo life." 
 
 My hon, friend 
 from Alma, in seconding the motion for 
 the second reading of the Bill, referred 
 several times to the opinions expressed 
 by Cardinal Wiseman, and quoted them 
 at some length in supy)ort of this mea- 
 sure. I should like to refer, 
 on the other hand, to a speech deliv- 
 ered in the British House of Commons in 
 ICiS, by a well-known Roman Catholic 
 statesman, the R^ight Honorable Richard 
 Lalor Shiel, when a similar measure to 
 the present Bill was before the House of 
 Commons. That hon. gentleman said : — 
 
 " If my right hon. friend shall succeed in 
 
 Why may 
 not a man marry his wife's daughter, as well 
 as his wife's sister, for in neither case is the 
 barrier of consanguinity interposed ? 1 hold 
 it to be an indisputable fact, that the religious 
 feelings of the country are against this mea- 
 sure, and I would not wantonly, and gratui- 
 tously run counter to that feeling, for the sake 
 of a more than hazardouf innovation which 
 breaks down the moral feices that protect our 
 homes." 
 
 I have purposely abstained from follow- 
 ing the example of either of my hon, 
 friends, the mover or the seconder of the 
 Bill, in quoting the opinions of theolo- 
 gians or ecclesiastics in support of their 
 views on the f abject before the House ; 
 but werfc I to take this course, I do not 
 think I should have the slightest diffi- 
 culty in producing as many authorities 
 on the other side, Eminenb divines of 
 great learning and ])iety belonging to 
 different denominations, and whose 
 experience and knowledge of the existing 
 condition of things among the classes 
 referred to in the evidence of Cardinal 
 Wiseman, q\ioted by the hou, gentleman 
 from Alma, is as wide and as accurate a3 
 the experience and knowledge oi that 
 
li 
 
 eminent prelate. I do not desire, how- 
 €vei', t •- take that course, but shall con- 
 tent myself with stating what is 
 undoubtedly the case, that a large 
 majority of the earnest thinking men 
 o£, the Church of England, in Eng- 
 land, have always been, and still 
 are, most strongly opposed to any 
 change in the m'\rriage laws, that 
 even among the Nonconformists there 
 are many who do not approve of any 
 change, that the Church of Scotland has, 
 as a body, always most strongly protest- 
 ed against tht measure, and bon. gentle- 
 men have heard in what terms the 
 eminent Roman Catholic statesman whom 
 I have quoted, has spoken of " the 
 hazardous innovation that would break 
 down the moral fences that protect our 
 homes." In this country, as my hon. 
 friend from Richmond has very properly 
 urged, public attention has not been, to 
 any great extent at least, directed to the 
 consideration of this matter, and 
 sufficient time has not been given 
 for a fair and satisfactory exuression 
 of public opinion in reference to so im- 
 portant a subject. As it is, I think that 
 upwards of sixty petitions against the 
 Bill have been presented in the Senate, 
 but the attention of the community gen- 
 erally has not been called to the impor- 
 tant changes which it contemplates, and 
 I very earnestly hofpe that the promoters 
 of the Bill will, on that ground—and it 
 is delay only that I am now urging — 
 consent to postpone any further consid- 
 eration of the H-jasure until the next 
 Session of Parliament. As it is, how- 
 ever, there have been put forth, from 
 time to time, in tliis country, very 
 strong and unmistakable expres- 
 
 against 
 
 any change 
 I may refer 
 meeting 
 
 sions of opinion 
 in the marriage law 
 to what took place at the 
 of the Church of England Provincial 
 Synod in Montreal, in 1877, composed of 
 clerical and lay delegates from almost 
 every Diocese in the Dominion. A very 
 strong resolution against the solemniza- 
 of such marriages as would be allowed 
 by the Bill, was adopted at that meeting, 
 and, notwithstanding what my hon. 
 friend (Mr. Fenier) has said about the 
 intolerance of the Church of England ! ! 
 I think that the opinion of such a body 
 is entitled to some resi)ect. I have, my- 
 self, also, during the present session, 
 
 presented several petitions from my own 
 Diocese, including one of them from the 
 Bishop of the Diocese, and others from 
 very considerable numbers of the clergy 
 and laity. I am aware, also, as a 
 matter of fact, that the Presbyterians, as 
 a body, in Ontario at all events, are 
 generally opposed to this Bill, and I 
 know that at the last meeting of the 
 Presbytery of Toronto it was determined 
 to petition against it, and a committee 
 was appointed to draft these petitions to 
 be laid before the Synod at its meeting 
 next week. Of course, the}^ did not 
 anticipate that this measure would be so 
 far advanced as it is now, or they would 
 have been prepared in time. I am quite 
 certain that if the attention of the com- 
 munity generally had been drawn to the 
 suV)ject before the meeting of Parliament, 
 the House would have been in- 
 undated with petitions against this 
 measure. I am perfectly free io 
 admit that there are many excellent 
 men in this country (as well as in Eng- 
 land) who are in fovor of the proposed 
 change, but I am sure the House will 
 agree with me that, iu a matter so deeply 
 affecting the religious scruples and do- 
 mestic happiness of the whole com- 
 munity, we should be thoroughly well 
 assured that any change sought to be 
 made really commends itself to the 
 judgment and consciences of at least a 
 large majority of the community. In a 
 matter which involves all that is dearest 
 and most precious to us in our home life 
 and affection, the views and opinions, 
 and even the prejudices of all affected, 
 are entitled to consideration and 
 respect. "What has been said by 
 the hon. Senator from Richmond 
 as to the course pursued in England, 
 under similar circumstances, in avoiding 
 hasty legislation, and also in reference to 
 the course pursued in this House, in 
 reference to a measure of another char- 
 acter, a year ago, ought to have some 
 weight with the Senate. This matter 
 has been well discussed in the House of 
 Commons, and will now be thoroughly 
 discussed here, and I think it is not an 
 unreasonable thing to ask that the Bill 
 be allowed to lie over imtil the next 
 session of Parliament. It should also 
 be borne in mind, as has already been 
 remarked, that individuals, whose par- 
 ticular cases are met and legislated 
 
12 
 
 for in this Bill, are much more 
 likely to be very zealous in petitioning 
 Parliament, and agitating in favor of 
 the measure, than those who are simply 
 ojiposed to it on general principles — and 
 this will sufficiently account for any lack 
 of agitation against the Bill ; but I am 
 perfectly correct in saying that had the 
 community generally been fully aware of 
 what -was in contemplation to be done 
 in the way of legislation, during the pi'e- 
 sent session, "we should have had a very 
 strong expression of adverse opinion 
 from all parts of the country. There is 
 nothing unfair, or unreasonable, there- 
 fore, in asking that time and oppor- 
 tunity be given for the expression of 
 that opinion, if it really exists, and 
 while I am not likely to change my own 
 views on the subject, still, if it 
 should appear, at the next session of 
 Parliament, that a majority of the 
 community are in favor of this Bill, of 
 course all^that I, and those who agree 
 with me, can then do, would be to re- 
 lieve our own consciences by voting 
 against it. I earnestly hope, therefore, 
 that the House will accede to the request 
 of those who are opposed to the Bill, and 
 who think that they speak the senti- 
 ments of a very large number of their 
 fellow-citizens throughout the Dominion, 
 and will postpone the furthe- considera- 
 tion of the Bill until the next session of 
 Parliament. 
 
 Hon. Mr. KAULBACH— This is a 
 very short Bill, but one striking at the 
 root of social and domestic life, and it is 
 most important in its character and con- 
 sequences. No such bill has ever been 
 submitted to the British Parliament, and 
 we have never had such a bill as this 
 submitted to any Parliament in Canada. 
 The hon. gentleman who introduced it 
 here to-day has contended that this 
 measure is desired in England, and that 
 there is no scriptural argument against it. 
 It seems to me, however, that this is not 
 the case. I look veiy strongly to the 
 " happy homes of England," which, I 
 think, should be our examples in many 
 matters — religious as well as moral — 
 and we must feel that England, 
 from its clear and oft-repeated actions in 
 Parliament, has no desire for this bill. 
 It is true, as the hon. gentleman from 
 Alma (Mr. Penny) has said, that Lord 
 Lyndhurst's Bill was intended sini{)ly as 
 
 a measure of relief, and Pai-liament, in a 
 charitable spirit, granted the transgres- 
 sors relief, but declared that such mar- 
 riages in the future would be void, and 
 so stands the law to this day. If it had 
 not the moral and beneficial influence 
 which we believe it has, why has not 
 the Parliament of England since that 
 day abolished this law 1 Why has it 
 not been repealed 1 We know, in fact, 
 th'it it has been frequently brought be- 
 fore the English House of Commons, and 
 as frequently been defeated. We have- 
 evidence of the House of Commons sid- 
 ing with the House of Lords in 1861, in 
 1862, in 1866 and in 1869, and in every 
 instance rejected the Bill. Again, in 
 1875, Sir T. Chambers' Bill was defeated 
 on second reading in the House of Com- 
 mons by a vote of 174 to 142. Now, 
 we must consider that that was the pub-' 
 lie sentiment of England in 1875, and 
 we have seen no change of sentiment 
 since that) time. We know that even 
 last year a bill not as repugnant as this 
 one to the dignity of woman — not going 
 as far as this one in the destruction of 
 the happy union of families, but a mea- 
 sure only to legalize marriage with the 
 sister of a deceased wife — was defeated 
 in the House of Lords, notwithstanding 
 the extraordinary and powerful influence 
 of its mover and its promoters, and, 
 therefore, I say again that, if we look to 
 England as our examplar, which I ara 
 happy and pleased to do, we must ad- 
 mit, without any hesitation or doubt, that 
 it is there considered as striking at the 
 root of the social and domestic life and 
 happinoss of the country. If, therefore,^ 
 we wish to look for precedents in this 
 matter for this Bill, we cannot go to 
 Mother ISngland, for we find there, from 
 its beginning, for centuries upon centu- 
 ries, the la"'^ of the land following the 
 Divine law has been opposed to these 
 marriages. In no case, and at no time, 
 in England has a bill attempted to go as 
 far as this one goes — to legalize man-iage 
 with the widow of a deceased brother — 
 and it seems to be revolting to natural 
 feelings that a brother's wife, incorpo- 
 rated into and assuming and legally 
 takinc the name of the hnsV)and and hia 
 family, should be subject to such an in- 
 consistent, depraved and demoralizing 
 alliance. It seems to nie that such an 
 alliance, viewed from every standpoint,, 
 
18 
 
 is shocking, and only con Id be sanctioned 
 or approved by a misguided or corrupt 
 taste. I feel that there should be a 
 strong opposition to this Bill as being 
 repugnant to all feeling or sense of right, 
 depriving sisters-in-law of the chaste 
 guardianship of fraternal love. I do not 
 wish to go tar into the religious aspect 
 of this question, but I believe that such 
 marriages have not the Divine sanction. 
 The 18 th chapter of Leviticus clearly 
 prohibits such alliances, and although, 
 as my hon. friend from Amherst 
 has stated, there are some mar- 
 riages that are not by express 
 words prohibited, they are . merely 
 the corollory of those that are prohibited. 
 For instance, a father was not expressly 
 prohibited from marrying his own 
 daughter — but a mother was prohibited 
 from marrying her own son. Nor was a 
 man in terms forbidden to niavry his 
 niece — but a woman was expi essly for- 
 bidden to marry her nephew. I contend 
 that what was forbidden in the one sex 
 was forbidden in the other, and, reason- 
 ing from these premises, I maintain that, 
 when, as by the IGth veise of that 
 chapter, a man was expressly forbidden 
 to marry his brother's widow, a woman, 
 by reasonable implication, was strictly 
 forbidden to marry her deceased sister's 
 husband— her brother-in-law. If we 
 sanction such marriages, we will be lead 
 to deny, in every detail, the sacred law, 
 and, by degrees, familiarize ourselves with 
 all the abominations which the law 
 forbade. In the early history of our 
 race, such marriages were, of course, 
 necessary, b>it the fitting time came — 
 when the Divine law interposed — when 
 it would not impose a harsh restraint on 
 the proper liberty of choice, but woidd 
 guard and extend the purity and sanctity 
 of loved and hallowed relations — pro- 
 tected from the misery, contusion and 
 jealousy — with which, unhappily, this 
 Bill now threatens them. My 
 hon. friend from Alma stated this 
 afternoon, marriages with the sister of a 
 deceased wife, were not prohibited 
 by divine law ; and he took upon him- 
 self to quote some remarks on that point 
 from tlie celebrated Cardinal Wiseman 
 to the efi'oct that the ecclesiastical rules 
 and regulations of the Church of Rome 
 prohibited such marriages, and that the 
 present law is an unnecessary interfer- 
 
 ence with its discipline. But the 
 Church of Rome certainly bases her 
 religion upon the divine law, and that 
 Church declares these marriages to bo 
 highly improper, and forbids them, 
 reserving dispensations in extreme cases. 
 But that celebrated prelate. Cardinal 
 Wiseman, before the same commission to 
 which my hon. friend from Alma referred, 
 stated that these marriages, of course, 
 were unlawful, and that such marriages, 
 as are. now contemplated by this Bill 
 before us, would be null. My hon. 
 friend says that marriages of this kind 
 are not always void, and that there is a 
 state of confusion in the present law. 
 There can be no confusion in the law. 
 Our law is plain and unmistakable. 
 Every person must know when he mar- 
 ries contrary to the spirit and intent of 
 that law, that he is violating it and 
 indulging in (to use a mild term) a 
 
 misguided 
 gated 
 
 taste, and 
 and brought 
 
 this Bill is insti- 
 _ „ in simply at the 
 
 instance, and for the express purpose of 
 protecting a comparatively few people 
 from the consequences of the law 
 which they have deliberately violated. 
 I have no sympathy with such 
 people, whether they move in 
 high society or in low life, 
 who openly and knowingly disre- 
 gard the moral and religious law of 
 the land. To legalize marriage with a 
 deceased wife's sister would at once de- 
 stroy that fraternal affection which ex- 
 ists for the sister-in-law, and deny her 
 the guardianship which she should 
 naturally have in her sister's house and 
 family. Unless, under any circum- 
 stances, the wife's sister can only be 
 treated as a sister, the close relationship 
 and fraternal love that are the charm of 
 social life are destroyed ; and once jou 
 destroy the present relation of the sister- 
 in-law, which you will do if this Bill 
 passes, you will deprive many persons, 
 who add a charm to marriage, who now 
 live together in a fiducial state, as 
 brothers and sisters, of that free social 
 and domestic and family love and inter- 
 course that prevails under the present 
 law. We have seen the benefit of this 
 law in England for centuries, and I ^co 
 no reason why, because some misguided 
 or corrupt individuals have thought pro- 
 per to violate what for ages has been con- 
 sidered to be a moral and necessary law, 
 
u 
 
 holding ROciety and miirriage relation- 
 ship, with the innumerable benefits in 
 the varied vicisistudes of life — I see no 
 reason why that law should be rei)ealed, 
 in order to legalize what is, in every 
 sense of the word, wrong, through any 
 feeling of sympathy. 
 
 Hon. Mr. DEVER — Hon. gentlemen, 
 in explanation of the vote I ani going to 
 give on tliis subject, matrimony, I wish 
 to make a few remarks, and, in doing 
 so, I trust I will be governed by proper 
 humility, if not timidity, because I am 
 aware the great majority before whom I 
 speak cannot, nor will not, be induced 
 to look on matrimony, and its churcli, 
 regulations, in the same sacred and 
 religious light which I do. To me, 
 matrimony clearlj' presents itself as a 
 purely Christian institution — over and 
 above the Levitical law, an institution 
 worthy of all honor and respect, and 
 binding, by that law, the Christian, " till 
 death do iis part." To sustain this 
 view, I find that, as far back as the 
 second century of the Christian era, Ter- 
 tuUion, who is known in history as one 
 of the fathers of the early Christian 
 Church, wrote these words : — 
 
 " How can we," he says, " express the hap- 
 piness of the marriage union contracted under 
 the auspices of the Church, consecrated by 
 the oblation of the holy sacrifice, and sealed 
 by the benediction which the angels have 
 witnessed, and which the Eternal Father has 
 ratified." 
 
 Again, in the fourth century, St. 
 Augustine, another father of the Church, 
 writing on the same subject, made use of 
 these clear and unequivocal expres- 
 sions : — " Among all nations the 
 advantage of the nuptial bond was to pro- 
 pagate the human race, and to unite the 
 married pair by the fidelity they owe to 
 each other. But with the people of God," 
 he says, " a more precious good, and a 
 stricter bond of union result from the 
 sanctity of the sacrament." Here hon. 
 gentlemen will see, without any doubt, 
 that, in tlie early church, matrimony was 
 clearly considered a sacrament. But St. 
 Paul, too, calls it "a great sacrament," 
 or "mystery," if you will — as some 
 translators have it — for what are any of 
 our sacraments but mysteries — things 
 which cannot be comprehended, except 
 by the eye of faith 1 " This is a great 
 sacrament," he says, " but I speak in 
 
 Christ, and in the Church " —Paul to the 
 Ephea. 5 chap. 32 verse. And, as the 
 church condemns not only this marriage, 
 with a deceased wife's sister, or a de- 
 ceased husband's brother, but even with 
 the third consin, or any nearer blood 
 relation of one's former husband or wife ; 
 and, as I do not feel disposed to reject 
 tlie teaching of Scripture and the Church, 
 as I see it, till some better guide be 
 given, I must personally be governed by 
 the history of the past, and by the 
 deductions from that plain passage in 
 Matthew, the 28th chapter, 18th, 19th 
 and 20th verses, which say : — 
 
 " All power is given to me in Heaven and in 
 earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptising them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you. And behold 1 am with you 
 ail days, even to the consummation of the 
 world." 
 
 See for further delaration of this commis- 
 sion, John 20th chap., 21st, 22nd, and 
 23rd verses, and John 14th chap, and 16th 
 verse. But, notwithstanding all this — 
 and it is a good deal — I will vote for the 
 Bill, because you will see by the fore- 
 going views that I look on matrimony 
 and its church regulations as a purely 
 Christian institution, which should be 
 wholly free from all civil restrictions to 
 those who can see it in no other light. 
 Besides, I know some highly honorable 
 and good people who ar«i aflfected by this 
 inconsistent civil law — people who 
 have no church restrictions of their 
 own in their way, and I am 
 glad to have it in my power to 
 assistin relieving them from it. But, in 
 voting for the Bill, I also see that the 
 clergymen of the Church of England 
 have strong conscientious .^cruples on the 
 subject, and I would, therefore, propose as 
 a concession to these gentleman to have 
 the following words inserted in the Bill 
 before we pass it : " But the passing of 
 this Act shall nob ,be construed to com- 
 pel any clergyman who may have con- 
 scientious scruples in the matter to per- 
 form the ceremony against his will.'* 
 And this, I believe, is but fair to thoso 
 gentlemen who clearly have strong con- 
 scientious scruples, and who, when de- 
 prived of the present civil restrictions, 
 cannot fall back, as other clergymen can, 
 on ecclesiastical law to prevent what they 
 conceive to be a great error, if not a sin. 
 
 T ' 
 
 
 -< 
 
< 
 
 16 
 
 i 
 
 .» ' 
 
 
 ■^r- 
 
 With these views, hon. gentlemen, T will 
 vote for the Bill. 
 
 Hon. Mr. ALEXANDER — The 
 House has been so flooded with news- 
 papers and memorials giving aigunionts 
 for and against this question, that I am 
 sure it will not be disposed to listen to 
 any lengthened remarks on the subject. 
 I merely rise to explain, as briefly as 
 possible, why I con.sirJer it to be my duty 
 to vote for this Bill. I ask myself the 
 question : if this measure becomes law, 
 how will it affect society and the dif- 
 ferent classes of society 1 If I look at my 
 own neighborhood, or Toronto, Hamilton 
 or other western cities or counties, I 
 can find numberless cases where men 
 desiring to evade the law as it now 
 stands, have passed over to the Uiiited 
 States, and, under the laws of that 
 country, have married the sisters of their 
 deceased wives. I have then asked my- 
 self : what have I found to be the posi- 
 tion of those gentlemen who have done 
 so, and, in all cases of which I have had 
 cognizance, they have been leading mem- 
 bers of leading churches, occupying 
 a respectable and respected position in 
 every way, and they have not been 
 the less respected because they have done 
 so. I have, therefore, come to the con- 
 clusion that this Bill will not affect the 
 better class of society, because the head 
 of any family who has the misfortune to 
 lose the mother of his children, and 
 desires to marry her sister, cati go over 
 to the United States and legally accom- 
 plish there what he cannot do in Canada, 
 and I do not see that the passing of this 
 Bill will have any immoral eft'ect on the 
 poorer classes. For, when a poor man has 
 the misfortune to lose his wife, what can 
 be more natural than that the sister 
 of the deceased wife should be more in- 
 terested in the welfare of the children 
 than any other person 1 I cannot see 
 that this Bill will have any immoral 
 eflfect on society, and I conceive it to be 
 my duty to vote in favor of the measure. 
 Hon. Mr. FLINT moved the adjourn- 
 ment of the debate. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 MARRIAGE 
 
 WITH DECEASED 
 SISTER BILL. 
 
 WIFE'S 
 
 DEFEATED ON SECOND READING. 
 
 Tho Order of the Day having been 
 read for resuming the adjourned debate 
 
 j on the Hon. Mr. Ferrier's motion, for the- 
 I second reading of Bill (30) " An Act to 
 legaliz-^ marriage with the sister of a de- 
 ceased wife,'" 
 
 Hon. Mr. FLINT said The hon. 
 member from An)herst, yesterday, moved 
 a resolution to j)ostpone this measure 
 over the present session. I can see no 
 good reason in the argument that he 
 offered on that occasion why this Bill 
 should not be proceeded with the present 
 session. The hon. gentleman, if I under- 
 stood him rightly, gave us to understand 
 that, when a man married a woman, they 
 became onfe flesh, and that the wife's 
 sister also became part of that fle.sh. I 
 must dissent from any belief of that 
 kind. I do not believe in a man's wife's 
 sister being incorporated into a wife and 
 husband when the marriage tie is made, 
 and I trust the hon. gentleman will par- 
 don me for mentioning the matter. If I 
 am right. 
 
 Hon. Mr. DICKEY — The hon. 
 gentleman must have misunderstood me. 
 I did not say the husband and his wife's 
 sister were one flesh. I said of the hus- 
 band and wife that they twain should 
 be one flesh. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FLINT— I think that there 
 were other hon. gentlemen in this House 
 who understood, as I did, the hon. Sena- 
 tor from Amherst to say that the wife's 
 sister stood in the same relation to the 
 husband, and, so far as the reasoning of 
 the hon. gentleman goes, from his stand- 
 point, it is all right. He wants this 
 
 Bill postponed because a large number 
 of petitions have been laid before the 
 House in opposition to the measure. I 
 have paid considerable attention to those 
 petitions as they were brought before 
 the Senate, and I did not hear of one 
 of them asking for the postponement of 
 the Bill, but rather that it should not 
 become law. There is bnt one presented 
 to-day asking for its postponement. The 
 question now is, whether rtiv benefit 
 or advaiitage is going to be derived from 
 postponing this Bill until another session. 
 If a 0- ^ 'm amount of agitation has been 
 raised aiready, what will that agitation 
 be between now and next session, and 
 is it actually necessary that this agitation 
 should be set on foot throughout the 
 length and breadth of the land, in order 
 to induce hon. gentlemen to pass this 
 
16 
 
 measure'? The lion, gentleman ffom 
 Amherst suggested that we should now 
 adopt the same course as was taken by 
 this House in reference to the Insolvency- 
 Law Eepeal Bill, but I do not think 
 that la an analogous case at all, as it 
 stood in an entirely different position. 
 The Insolvency Kepeal Bill was for the 
 purpose of abolishing an Act that we 
 considered to be injurious to the country. 
 This Bill is not for the purpose of dis- 
 solving the marriage tie, but to allow a 
 man to marry his deceased wife's sister, 
 or a woman to marry the brother of her 
 deceased husband, providoji that they 
 should agree to 
 do not see that 
 thing to prevent it, 
 country, and we 
 
 do so, and I 
 we should do any- 
 \Ve live in a free 
 should be allowed 
 to think, act and speak for ourselves as 
 long as we keep within the limit of the 
 law. I am considerably advanced in 
 years, and I have, during my lifetime, 
 known several cases in which a man has 
 married his deceased wife's sister, and in 
 every instance, so far as my knowledge 
 extends, I have never known a disagree- 
 ment as the result of such marriages. 
 The sister-in-law is , far preferable, in my 
 opinion, to bring up the children of her 
 deceased sister than any woman outside 
 of the family. I have noticed also that, 
 when widowers have married the second 
 time, not with the sister-in-law, the first 
 children have been abused and driven 
 from home, and everything has been 
 done to prevent them from enjoying any 
 of the benefits which would accrue from 
 the property of their father. _ I have 
 known some very hard cases indeed of 
 this kind, but none on the other side of 
 the question. Under all circumstances, 
 a man should have the privilege of 
 marrying whom he pleases, so long 
 as he does not marry an actual 
 relative. I believe that there is no 
 affinity between the deceased wife and 
 her sister. When the wife dies she is 
 gone, and that tie is, therefore, severed 
 Just as much as is the tie between the 
 husband and wife severed when the 
 wife dies, and vice versa with the hus- 
 band. This being the case, I cannot see 
 why we should object to this measure. 
 The groat majority of the petitions that 
 have° been sent in against the measure 
 have come from the Episcopal Church. 
 We have been told by the hon. gentle- 
 
 man from Montreal that the position of 
 Eoman Catholics in Quebec is this : That, 
 while the church can grant a dispensa- 
 tion to allow a man to marry the sister 
 of his deceased wife, the children of that 
 issue cannot inherit the property -ander 
 the civil law. Are they to be allowed 
 to remain in that state 1 I think not. If 
 the church has the power to give the 
 dispensation, they ought at least to con- 
 sent to a law which will make the chil- 
 dren by the marriage with the deceased 
 wife's sister iieirs to their father's pro- 
 perty equally with the children of the 
 first wife. If they wish to bow to the 
 will of their church in this respect it is 
 all very well, but they should not insist 
 that we Protestants should also bow to 
 the will of the Church of Rome. The 
 Church of EngUnd has no power to grant 
 dispensations such as the Chu .ch of Rome 
 has, and if the ministers of that church 
 desire to have an Act passed giving 
 them that power, they should say so, and 
 then we can understand them, but they 
 come forward, instead, and tell us they 
 do not want this Bill passed, because it 
 is contrary to Scripture. Where do they 
 get the Scripture it is contrary to 1 It 
 is contrary to their own rule, but not 
 to Scripture. The hon. gentleman from 
 Amherst quoted Scripture last evening 
 to shew that he was right, and I want 
 him to understand that there 
 is nothing like appealing to the 
 law and to the testimony. The 
 eighteenth chapter of Leviticus and 
 eighteenth verse is the authority which 
 is quoted as forbidding marriage with a 
 deceased wife's sister. It reads : — 
 
 " Neither shall he take a wife to her sister 
 to vex her and uncover her nakedness beside 
 the ether in her lifetime." 
 
 Now, what is meant by these words : " in 
 her lifetime 1" It simply means that he 
 should not marry his wife's sister during 
 his wife's lifetime, as they might quarrel, 
 but he could take the sister of any other 
 woman, ia a matter of course. He could 
 have two wives under that dispensation. 
 I have never known but one case where 
 a man had two wives at the same time, 
 and they did not quarrel. It is such a 
 peculiar case that I will mention the 
 circumstances. A farmer living back of 
 Brockville, was said to have two wives. 
 They had two houses, and he lived with 
 one wife one week and with the other the 
 
17 
 
 next week ; turn about. He had two 
 families by those wives, and supported 
 them comfortably, and settled tluini all 
 on good fai-ms. These two wives did not 
 quan-el, but, as a general rule, there would 
 be a quarrel between the first wife and 
 the second; if they wei:e sisters they 
 would quarrel woi-se, and there would be 
 a great amount of trouble in such a 
 household. If any hon. gentleman can 
 interpret that passage of Scripture to 
 mean anything else than what it says, I 
 should like to hear him do so. I am no 
 theologian ; I have never studied 
 divinity, but T have studied the Bible 
 some, and I take it for what 
 it says, and T believe it says just 
 what it means. The hon. gentleman 
 quoted several passages to prove that 
 marriage with the sister of a deceased 
 wife is prohibited, but I do not think 
 that any of them apply. On the othar 
 hand, if you refer to Matthew, you will 
 find that, when the Sadducees came to our 
 Saviour and asked him about the woman 
 who had seven husbands, which of them 
 v/ould be her husband in Heaven, he did 
 not upbraid the woman, nor say that it 
 was wrong for her to have had seven 
 husbands, nor did the Sadducees ask him 
 to do so ; but they asked him whose wife 
 she would be in the resurrection. 
 Christ's reply was that she would be the 
 wife of none of them, but would be as 
 the angels in heaven. It is said also 
 that there is no law by which a man 
 can marry his deceased brother's wife. 
 Well, if you just go back to Deuter- 
 onomy, you will find, in the 25Lh chapter 
 and 5th verse, that there is not only au- 
 thority but a command to a man to 
 marry the wife of his deceased brother. 
 It may be said that that is because he 
 lias to raise up children to his brother. 
 It may not have been the man's fault 
 that she had no children. Hon. gentle- 
 men may laugh, but I am speaking 
 seriously on this subject, though, if they 
 continue it, I may be tempted to put in 
 a joke occasionally. If the man refused 
 to marry his brother's widow, she could 
 unloose the shoe from her foot and spit 
 in his face. He was bound to marry her 
 or to au.bmit to this degradation. I can- 
 not see anything in this passage which 
 prohibits a man from marrying his de- 
 ceased wife's sister, or a woman from 
 marrying her deceased husband's brother, 
 
 and why should it be so ? I am 
 strongly in favor of this Bill, and I 
 hope that hon. gentlemen will consider 
 well l>eforo thoy throw it out for this 
 session. The people are in favor of tlys 
 measure, and, if they were asked to peti- 
 tion Parliament for it, the House would 
 be flooded with petitions. But no one 
 thought it was necessary, as they ex- 
 pected it was only reasonable and light 
 that a bill should be framed so as not 
 only to allow those marriages to take 
 place, but to legalize all that had taken 
 place before, and to place the children of 
 such mirriages in the same position as 
 the children of the first wife. I trust 
 that I have said nothing offensive to 
 anyone's feelings in my remarks, as I 
 have only spoken strictly in accordance 
 with tjie dictates of my own conscience. 
 
 Hon. Mr. ODELL— I think this is 
 too grave a subject to be treated with 
 levity. It is a question of very great im 
 portance — more so, perhaps, than any 
 other that has come betore this Hotiso this 
 session, or in an}' previous session of 
 Parliament, affecting, as it does, the 
 social relations of the community from 
 one end of the Dominion to the other. 
 I desire, therefore, to record my reasons 
 for the vote which I shall give in sup- 
 port of the resolution which has been 
 submitted, and, before I proceed to state 
 what those reasons are, I will first refer 
 to the petitions which have been alluded 
 to by the hon. member who last ad- 
 dressed us. He stated that hone of those 
 petitions ask that this measure be de- 
 ferred, but that the Bill be rejected. 
 Now, I will read from the conclusion of 
 those petitions, one of which I hold in 
 my hand, what the prayer of the peti- 
 tioners is : 
 
 " Finally, your petitioners submit that, 
 before any alteration is made in tbe marriage 
 law s, ample opportunity should bo afforded for 
 the full conRideration of a subject in which all 
 persons are more or less interested, and for 
 the presentation of their objections by those 
 who are opposed to any change ; that no such 
 opportunity has been afforded with respect to 
 the Bill now before your hon. House, and 
 that for this, as well as the other reasons 
 herein set forth, it should be rejected. 
 " And your petitioners >v ill ever pray, &c." 
 
 With regard to the Bill, as I have already 
 said, I consider it one of very great im- 
 portance, demanding the careful and 
 calm consideration of your honors, which 
 2 
 
18 
 
 >t IS the peciliui- duty of this Honsn to 
 give to all meas.ires, but especially to 
 one upon which opinions appear to he 
 so d.vuiecl. I do not intend to bring into 
 the discnssion any argnments in regard 
 to the scriptural objections that have 
 often been raised against the measure 
 opinions upon which are so divided, even 
 Hmongst those supposed to be best quali- 
 hed to form a correct judgment. At the 
 same time. I think great consideration 
 o«ght to 1.0 accorded to the feelinss of 
 those entertaining such scruples, sanc- 
 tioned and enjoined as the interpretation 
 hey contend for has been by church and 
 state tor so many centuries. The Bill 
 as It has reached us, is, in some respects 
 jess objectionable than as first introduced 
 in another place, as an amendment has 
 been made reserving the rights of the 
 issue ot the previous marriage. Still 
 whatever arguments may be adduced in 
 tavor of a marriage with a deceased wife's 
 sister, that with the brother's widow is 
 Jar more objectionable. This, your 
 
 could provide that no issue should ensue, 
 
 there might be some force in such an 
 argument, but if issue follows, then the 
 an. becomes n.erge.l in the step- 
 mother and her affections naturally be- 
 come alienated from her sister's children 
 to her own. But, ,iside from this pa i- 
 icular case what is the object sought to 
 
 relief ofT^ ^^ *^"^^'"' ^^^^-b^ the 
 reliet of the comparatively few who can 
 
 ever be m a position to avail themselves 
 of the privilege of contracting such mar- 
 mgos, and of those who have alreidv 
 onen V V n u+£.^i +i,„ j_.._ , .. ""^'"v 
 
 _,.j — v»vy..ci,ui<r. xma, your 
 honors, is the first time this measure has 
 ever been before the Dominion Parlia- 
 raent introduced without any previous 
 
 Si'/f V^"'^ '"' ^'*"' opportunity 
 afforded for obtaining an expJession of 
 public opinion upon the question. How 
 I woivld ask, has it come before Parlia: 
 
 ^nn J A ''^'zy ''^"'«""« *« *''« «P«e«hes 
 reported in Ilansard, that it was frankly 
 
 admitted to have been instigated by, and 
 
 leen s"a?d »V''^^' of a lad>, wno,t has 
 been said, Loving not wisely, but too 
 well, knowingly and wilfully placed 
 herself m the position she now occ^upies 
 
 Zi-'T\'^^' ^''^'' should be now 
 egahzed in disregard and in violation of 
 the feelings of the law-abiding portion of 
 the community. Not only so, but 
 having issue herself, she wished to divert 
 from her sister's children to her 
 own the inheritance lawfully beloncr. 
 ing to them. {Hansard, page 291.) fs 
 this, I ask, a fitting prelude for the 
 introduction of such a bill ? Does it not 
 present the strongest argument agains 
 the measure ? And how completely' does 
 It destroy the argument t.at, while con- 
 verting the aunt into the step-mother 
 you retain the affections and kindly feel' 
 ings of the aunt towards her sister's off- 
 spring and provide the fittest person to 
 have their care and to act the par^ «? 
 guardian and protect their rights. If you 
 
 1 . , — — '''"jw YTHu iia,ve airearlv 
 openly violated the law and disregarded 
 what many hold to be a Divine S^jlt 
 InllTu "\«r'P"«'ti«n to what I believe 
 to be the wishes and feelings of a larae 
 "lajority of the law-abidinj portion ?? 
 
 bv^heTn"''"^-. / "•" 8'^^' *««"'! tJ'^fc, 
 by. .he Bill, as it has reached us, the ex- 
 
 i^^mgnghtsof the children of the first 
 
 wite have been preserved, and the con- 
 
 irintt? T""-'°"' °P^"'^ ^^o^'^d at 
 fin^ r^'"'°'' '" ^"°*^«'- place, been 
 fuistrated, even should the Bill pass. 
 What, let me ask, is the course pursued 
 n regard to bills of a local nature o. 
 nSttn^ ? r ^"^^i^iJ^als, or a small 
 portion of the community ? Have we 
 not established most stringent rules, re- 
 quiring not only public notice for two 
 months m the Gazetie of the nature and 
 provisions of any such bill proposed to 
 be in reduced, but a similal- notice in 
 both languages, French and English in 
 w!r/"i*? newspapers in the locality 
 in erested ? Do we not, by the 51st 
 rule, require certain prescribed formal- 
 ities, as regards petitions for the passing 
 of such bills, to be complied with beforl 
 even the petition will be entertained ? 
 And have we not appointed a laige and 
 influential committee, whose duty it is 
 to ascei-tam that all these preliminaries 
 are duly attended to ? And all this 
 
 wnrkJ? ^'' '°. ^" P"*^ ^" '"^tion and 
 worked tor a trivial alteration in some 
 act ot incorporation— the alteration of 
 a road or the building of a bridge, or 
 some s,ich purpose. But in this case we 
 are a,sked to pass a bill affec, g all the 
 social relations of life of every individual 
 fiom ocea,! to ocean-Cape Breton, in the 
 east, to ^^anco^ver, in the west— without 
 any previous notice whatever that such 
 a measure was contemplated. Why 
 iion. gentlemen, if a publication of twa 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 J 
 
 J 
 i 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 ] 
 
jf rr 
 
 19 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 njonths is reqtured in all stich privivte 
 and local mutiera, twelve months would 
 barely suffice for proper notice in a mat- 
 ter in which the whole population, 
 spread over this vast extent of country, 
 is deeply interested. And I hold that 
 this 51st rule is applicable to this case, 
 as it refers specially to bills granting any 
 peculiar rights or privileges, or affecting 
 rights of property, or relating to anv 
 particular class of the community. I 
 would, therefore, strongly urge the adop- 
 tion by your honors, in this case, of the 
 same course pursued last session in re- 
 gard to the Bill to ro[.eal the Insolvent 
 laws. A bill like the present, coming 
 from the Commons, backed by a large 
 majority, and, though affecting only a 
 portion of the community, it was de- 
 cided that time should be afforded for 
 more mature consideration and for in- 
 formation as to what its effect might be, 
 and the Bill was, accordingly, postponed. 
 How much stronger and more forcible 
 are the demands for delay in the case of 
 a measure like the present, affecting the 
 social relations of the whole population 
 of every class and of every creed, creat- 
 ing so important a change in the long- 
 established law which has, so far, with- 
 stood all attempts to change it in the 
 Mother Country, and ratified and con- 
 firmed, as it has been, by both 
 Church and State lor so many centuries, 
 In disscussing a question of this nature, 
 we ought, I think, to be in a great mea- 
 sure guided by the course pursued in 
 England. Now, whatever may be said 
 in regard to the Statutes passed during 
 the reign of Henry VIII to suit the 
 caprice of that licentious monarch, 
 it is clear that since the passing of the 
 Lyndhurst Act, in 1835, marriage with 
 a deceased wife's sister is made illegal ; 
 the offence, up to that date, • was con- 
 doned, but not to be repeated. Since the 
 passing of that Act, the question has been 
 repeatedly brought before the British 
 Parliament, and though bills introduced 
 in the Commons have, in several in- 
 stances, been passed, they have, on a 
 majority of occasions, been there re- 
 jected, an^! have been invariably re- 
 jected by the Lords— whether 01 iginating 
 in that House or the Commons. The 
 measure was rejecto.! in the Commons 
 on eight occasions: in 1842, 1849 
 1855, 1861, 1862, 186(?, 1869, 1875,' 
 
 and bills originating in the Lords on 
 three occasions, 18 U, 1851, and again as 
 late as 1879. Had a bill to legalize such 
 marriiiges become law in England, then, 
 I think, we should pass a similar one 
 here to assimilate our laws. But, pass- 
 ing one here, would be altogether 
 local in effect ; give no rights cr ])rivi- 
 leges, or legalize the marriages there. 
 In addition to this, I d«sire to call 
 especial attention to what has lately 
 taken place in England. A large and 
 influential meeting was held at St. 
 James' Hall, London, on the 2oth of 
 February last, undei the auspices of a 
 number of lay Peers, Members of Parlia- 
 ment, Queen's Counsel, delegates from, 
 the Entablished Church of Scotland, 
 Workingmen'a Society, "Workingmen's 
 Protestant League, Protestant Election 
 Union, ani Free Church College of 
 Glasgow. At this meeting the question 
 was not taken up as a party question, 
 not as a church question, but as one of 
 social order and morality. The first- 
 resolution was moved by Mr. A. C. 
 Swinton, representing the General As- 
 sembly of the Kirk of Scotland, and, 
 with permission, I will read an extract 
 from his remarks in 
 solution : — 
 
 " He stood there as the representative of the 
 church and people of Scotland. He rejoiced 
 to add that the Free Church shared wi^h the 
 K-stablishment in the intensity of its convic- 
 tions, and that the Church of England was 
 with them to a man. What was proposed 
 would be the beginning of a revolution in the 
 social life of the community. You would de- 
 prive orphaned children of what the pre .Rioters 
 of the Bill declared to be the best guardian- 
 ship they could have. The interests of thou- 
 sands of God-fearing men, law-abiding citizens 
 would be sacrificed to the desires of a few." 
 
 Altogether, four resolutions, all con- 
 demning any change in the existing law 
 were carried by overwhelming majori' 
 ties, thus clearly shewing how strong 
 and growing a feeling exists in 
 fc-ngland and Scotland against any 
 change in the existing ]aw. It 
 
 a law 
 
 introducing the re- 
 
 pre- 
 
 uiay be argued that such „ ,„.. . 
 vails in Australia, but the example has 
 not been followed by the adjacent col- 
 onies of New Zealand oi Natal, in both 
 of which the measure failed; and in 
 Australia it never became law until 
 twice passed— the first Act having been 
 disallowed, r- nly receiving the Royal 
 
 assent on bein^ passed a second time. I 
 
20 
 
 do not think we wliould go to so distant 
 <i colony for precedent, i)ut rely rather 
 upon the example of the Mother Country, 
 where Hueh a measure has always failotl 
 to meet with success. The Act will be 
 especially unfair to the Ejiiscopal clergy 
 ■who have no i)ower of Jispensatio*, and 
 feel precluded from solemnizing sucli 
 marriages by their ordination oath, by 
 tiio established tables of kindred and 
 atlinity and the canons of their Church, 
 and, notwithstanding, may be com- 
 pelled to perform the ceremony, or sub- 
 mit to penalties that may be imposed. 
 Notwithstanding the short i)eriod whiah 
 has been allowed for presenting petitions, 
 I find that upwards of sixty have been 
 l)resented against the Bill, asking that 
 the measure may be postponed, to aflbrd 
 sufficient time to learn the wishes of the 
 country at large upon so vital a question. 
 These petition"^, I find, by a printed 
 sheet laid upon my table, have been as- 
 sailed in a most unjustifiable manner by 
 a Montreal paper, to which I desire to 
 refer. This sheet, in referring to the 
 Bill before the House, indulges in the 
 following remai'ks : — 
 
 "Thero, perhaps, never was a measure before 
 Pailiament in connection with which public 
 wentiment in its favor was so united as is the 
 case in connection with this measure. We 
 had in tlie press of the Dominion no indica- 
 tion of any hostile sentiment. With singular 
 unanimity the press of all the provinces have 
 either warmly approved the Bill, or have been 
 silent. The petitions that have been pre- 
 sented, asking for its postponement, prove the 
 same fact. They are for the most part print- 
 ed, shewing a regularly organized effort to 
 provoke a hostile expression of opinion ; and 
 yet, although they only ask for a postponement 
 of the measure, which many persons who are 
 favorable to it, or indifferent upon the sub- 
 Ject, might sign, and, although most powerful 
 influence has been used to secure signatures, the 
 result has simply shewn how utterly infinit- 
 esimal is the opposition Lo the measure . " 
 
 I am at a loss to perceive how the pre- 
 sentation of sixty-one petitions against 
 the measure from si.\ty-one different 
 localities, proves that •' the public senti- 
 ment is in its favor, and that there is no 
 indication of any hostile sentiment," as 
 asserted by the writer. Again the writer 
 goes on to state : — 
 
 " Had there been any such opposition as 
 would justify the Senate in interposing its 
 veto, after the overwhelming majority in its 
 favor in the House of Commons, that opposi- 
 tion would have manifested itself in a much 
 more emphatic way than has been shewn." 
 
 To this I wouhl remark that, by petition 
 in the only h'gitiuiate way, the only 
 emphatic way, of expressing the wishes 
 of the pid)lic, or of individuals, to Par- 
 liamont ; and this course lias been 
 adoj)ted, so far as the limited time 
 allowed has rendered practicable. And, 
 again, that " the postjionenient would 
 l)rovoke discussions and breed heart- 
 burnings which everyone would de- 
 jdore." This argument, that postpone- 
 ment would cau.se discussion, is alto- 
 gether worthless. Discussion is what is 
 required, and the friends of the measure 
 oughtratlier to court discussion than repu- 
 diate it. The measure, if a good one, and 
 in unison with public sentiment, would 
 lose nothing, but thereby gain support. 
 After all this, what do wo find emanat- 
 ing from the same city of Montreal t In- 
 stead of an imaginary, an unmistakable 
 " regularly-organized effort " to induce 
 your honors to sanction the Bill, by a 
 number of printed sheets circuhted there 
 for signature, handsomely bound and 
 illuminated, presented to this House as 
 purporting to be (and entered on the pro- 
 ceedings) as so many separate petitions, 
 whereas they, in truth, form but one 
 and from one single locality. The whole 
 number •f petitions, therefore, in favor 
 of the measure are only four — two, at 
 least, from the same locality ; whereas 
 there are sixty-one against it, from sixty- 
 one different localities. I desire also 
 to call attention to the reasons assigned 
 in this petition for passing the Bill,viz: — 
 " Because it is said the question has been 
 before the world for years," and " the 
 suspension of the passage for twelve 
 months would create confusi.-^n and diffi- 
 culty, and affect the rights of many citi- 
 zens." Now, if as is stated, " it hr.s been 
 before the world for years," no great 
 calamity has ever, in consequence, en- 
 sued. Nor is it likely that any will 
 occur if deferred for twelve months 
 longer. Nor need we anticipate the con- 
 fusion or difficulties suggested. And as 
 to the delay affecting " the rights of citi- 
 zens," there are no existing rights to be 
 affected. I might well retaliate and 
 apply the remarks already quoted, that 
 " this result simply shews how infinitessi- 
 mal is the support given to the measure, 
 or it would have manifested itself in a 
 much more emj)hatic way than has been 
 shewn by four petitions." I feel sure 
 
 1 
 
31 
 
 
 your honom will not ivllow yom-Holvcs to 
 be hegiiilt'd l>y tills attempt co ignoro tli« 
 l.c'titionf! fioiii sixty-oil" diHVrent locali- 
 ties, or look upon Montreal as reprcaoiit- 
 ing the whole Dominion, wluitever per- 
 sonal interest or influence uiuy bo there 
 concentrated, but that you will readily 
 grant the reasonable delay asked for by 
 the resolution before the House, I may 
 say, in conclusion, that should the Bill go 
 to a committee, I give notice that I shall 
 move that the latter part of the first 
 clause be amended by striking o\it the 
 words, " or the widow of his deceased 
 brother." And also, should the Bill pass, 
 that a clause be added suspending the 
 operation of tlie Act until it shall have 
 received Her Majesty's assent, as it 
 would be highly prejudicial andinjurioiis 
 should such a measure become law for a 
 short period, and be afterwards disal- 
 lowed. 
 
 Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE— I shall 
 not follow my hon. friend in the course 
 that he has taken, because I 'imagine 
 that here the richest field foi contro- 
 versy has been abandoned by the most 
 astute scholars in the world, who have 
 pledged their reputation as linguists 
 that the interpretation of the Levitical 
 law will bear the construction that we, 
 who advocate this measure, put upon it. 
 I regret that the hon. Senator from 
 Amherst, who introduced this resolu- 
 tion, did not move the six months' hoist, 
 but has sought to win support for his 
 cunningly-prepared resolution, which he 
 could not obtain by a direct motion 
 against the Bill. I believe that his re- 
 solution was prepared in order that it 
 might catch some hopeful support like 
 that of the hon. Senator from Richmond, 
 who frankly told us that he was pre- 
 pared to sustain the Bill — wii.h the ex- 
 ception of the second clause — and yet 
 was prepared to vote for this amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Hon. Mr. MILLER— I did not say 
 anything of the kind. I distinctly stated 
 that an important portion of the Bill I 
 was decidedly opposed to. 
 
 . Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE— I have 
 already said tliat, while the hon. gen- 
 tleman opposed a portion of the Bill, 
 he was not opposed to the first part of it. 
 He said that he agreed to the ])ortion of 
 the Bill which permitted marriage with 
 
 the sister of a deceased wife. While I 
 do not sen th^sanie objection to the lat- 
 ter part of the Hill that some gontl<Mi)on 
 <lo, I cannot see the close or doubthil 
 alKnity that some do, in the case of tho 
 widow of a deceased brother. Still, 
 T fraidily admit that there are objection- 
 able features in connection with siicli a 
 marriage, which we do not feel in con- 
 nection with the first class of cases, and 
 I am not at all prepared to say that if this 
 Bill goes into Committee, I would not 
 bo ready to sustain my hon. friend's 
 views on the second i)ai't of tlie clause 
 allowing marriage with the wife 
 of a deceased brother. From what 
 has been argued here, and fiom 
 the pertinacity with which some hon, 
 gentlemen oinwse the Bill, you wouM 
 really suppose that the object was not 
 merely to give them liberty, but to com- 
 pel them to marry the sisters of deceased 
 wives. You would suppose, from what 
 they say, that there was not a man in 
 the country who, if he hap|)ened to lose 
 his wife, would not be compelled to 
 marry her sister, if she had one. Now, 
 hon, gentlemen, what really are the 
 causes that give rise to such "a disturb- 
 ance? Who are the parties that seek, 
 here, to avail themselves of the pi-ivilege 
 that this Bill will confer] Is it the 
 cases of young and thoughtless jji-rsons 
 in the hey-day of youth ] How many 
 sad scenes do we find, of young j 'nsons 
 who are brought together without pre- 
 vious acquaintance, and who rush 
 into wedlock and learn the truth of tho 
 old adage, " marry in haste, and 
 repent at leisure T We know many of 
 those sad cases ; they are before us every 
 day ; but who are the class of persons 
 that seek relief through this Bill ? The 
 man who has arrived at mature age, be- 
 yond all doubt. He has been wedded, 
 and must, in all probability, have spent 
 years of wedded life. His wife's sister 
 will, very probably, have been residing 
 in the house with him. Who, 1 
 ask, could be found to whom the wife, in 
 her last moments, would so carefully en- 
 trust her children as to her sister 1 But 
 who is the sister? In all probability 
 she, too, is a lady of mature and ripened * 
 years— very likely an aged spinster; 
 probably one who, for years, has 
 been on intimate terms of acquaintance 
 with her sister's husband. * Hav- 
 
as 
 
 ing known and cmofully stnJied 
 each other's (|'ialitieH, Miii havinf? 
 made up thcii- mmdH that they 
 wore adiijjtod to each oth»'r, if they 
 conchulo to marry, who can doubt that 
 Kuch a concluHioii in the result of mature 
 experience, and tliat such a marriag<i 
 would bo u happy one'f Wo have «U 
 seen cases of men who did not marry 
 their deceased wife's sister, and whose 
 experience was unfortunate. But while 
 I know a great many who have married 
 their deceased wives' sisters, I am not 
 aware of a solitary instance in which the 
 parties were not happy. But what is 
 the consequence of the law as it is at 
 present 1 The hon. Senator from Wood- 
 stock told WH yesterday that these mar- 
 riages are continually being con- 
 tracted all over Canada. What 
 do parties do who desire to con- 
 tract those marriages 1 They simply 
 go across the border, where such mar- 
 riages can be contracted and are legal, 
 and they do so, feeling and believing 
 that there is no moral stain upon them. 
 They feel that they transgress no law of 
 God or man, and that there is no blood 
 relationsbip between them. If some 
 hon. gentleman had had the boldness to 
 introduce a law to restrict marriages be- 
 tween cousins, I am not sure but that it 
 would benefit the country. Who can 
 have failed to observe the effects of ill- 
 assorted marriages of cousins and other 
 blood relations? Who can have failed 
 to have seen the sad results of such mar- 
 riages, such as often happens — deformed 
 children — and yet is there any law to 
 l)reyent these unions 1 What is to prevent 
 a widower marrying his cousin, a blood 
 relation, who, perhaj)s, has taken charge 
 of his children] Is the:3 anything in 
 such a marriage that is considered 
 immoral ; or does anyone think there is 
 any immorality in a man, who has lost 
 his wife, living in the same house with 
 liis cousin ] While the sad effects of the 
 marriages of blood-relations are seen and 
 felt all over the country, the results of 
 marriages such as are intended to be 
 legalized by this Bill, are exactly in the 
 ^pposite direction. My hon. friend says 
 that we should be guided in our legisla- 
 tion by the experience of England, but 
 what is the state of society there 1 Who 
 does not'know you have there a domin- 
 ant church, which rules and controls 
 
 the social life of the country 1 
 Who does not know that, in the 
 House of Conmions of Great Britain, 
 where bills of this kind have been carried 
 seven times 
 
 Hon. Mr. POVVKU— Four times. 
 
 Hon. Mr. MACFARLANK— I shall 
 give the very btist authority, the author- 
 ity of Ijord Houghton, who says that 
 such bills have passed the House of Com- 
 /nons seven times. 
 
 Hon. Mr. ODKLL— It is a mistake. 
 
 Hon. Mr. MACFAKLANE— It is a 
 statement which, I imagine, the hon. 
 gentleman will not be able to gainsay. 
 Here is what Lord Houghton says, in u 
 speech delivered on a second reading 
 similar to this, on the Gth May, 1879 : — 
 
 " Hoven times has tho will of the people 
 been expreiricd by various majorities, some- 
 times approaching one hundrctl in support of 
 these bills, and seven times have they been 
 rejected by tho House of Lords. That, 
 assuredly, is not a satisfactory position in 
 which to leave that question, and, in tho 
 meantime, these marriages are multiplying 
 every day." 
 
 Now, what does this eminent authority 
 that I have quoted state in his speecli I 
 That these Bills were introduced not so 
 much to relieve the aristocracy of any 
 disability, but rather to relieve the poor 
 classes of the people who reside in the 
 rural parts ot the country, and not so 
 much residents of large cities and towns, 
 where they have a large field to form 
 their connections in. In the rural dis- 
 tricts, where a man has found a friend 
 in his deceased wife's sister, he clings to 
 her, and she is able to he^ him to pro- 
 vide for his children. That has proved 
 to be the case in England, and it is 
 equally so in this country. >^ow, 
 has any gentleman been able 
 to shew that bad results have 
 arisen from these marriages across the 
 border, where they are permitted by law ? 
 Yet there the law affects forty or fifty 
 millions of people ; and who has ever 
 hea.r; a. complaint that any woman has 
 boon i^cauA t» try to strip her deceased 
 sis-,j s , ; Udi-rr. of their property 1 Such 
 casoi. r.it occur. I do not say that 
 then; are nut bad sisters-in-law, just as 
 well as other people ; but what I do 
 mean to say is, that the widower who 
 has had a g<wd opportunity of becoming 
 acquainted with the sistei' of his deceased 
 
 W 
 
93 
 
 r 
 
 The only \ulid objoction 
 wl.oie tlio Mood relation- 
 
 •wifm, and espficiiilly if Hlie hus inHided 
 in hiH liouHo — tlioio isnooiio whose ch.ir- 
 Hcter ho ought to be rnoro futiiiliiir witli, 
 being in a ponit'on to know wiiuthcsr 
 •he woiiUI mako him hiippy or comfor- 
 table if Hhe beciime his wife, in Huch a 
 case. I 8ay, he Nhouhl not be prevented 
 Viy hiw from contructlri;^ Hiich a marriage. 
 I shall not labor the IJill, but in every 
 view that I can take of it, wo aro re- 
 moving by it, a8 wo aro bound to remove, 
 the shacklcH or i-estrictions that j rovent 
 men from selecting their partners in life 
 when there is no l)lood atlinity in 
 consideration, 
 to marriage i 
 ship is so close that it is likely to affect 
 the offspring. W'iui these views, I have 
 great p)i,ii! uro in supporting the Bill of 
 my hou. Inend, who we tnay well call 
 the Nestor of the House. I am sure 
 that, if the hon. Senator from Montreal 
 (Mr. Ferrier) thought there was any 
 immorality about it, he would be the last 
 one to be found advocating this Bill. 
 In his long life and extended experience, 
 the hon. gentleman is the Nestor of the 
 House. He has had more and longer 
 opportunities than any other member to 
 judge of the relief that it will give, and 
 I am quite sure that any hon. gentleman 
 in feuataining the Bill introduced by that 
 Jion. gentleman, will have no cause to re- 
 gret it. Entertaining these views, I 
 shall certainly record my vote against 
 the amendment proposed by the hon. 
 member for Amherst, and in favor of the 
 Bill, and, if the measure should be car- 
 lied, as T trust it will, when it is referred 
 to committee I shall be prepared to 
 assist in expunging any objectionable 
 features that it may contain. 
 
 Hon. Mr. MILLER — I ara sure that 
 the h( n. gentleman who has resumed his 
 seat has no desire to misrepresent what 
 I said, and I can only conclude, as he 
 expressed it himself, that he could not 
 have understood the plain statement 
 that I made to the House yesterday. 
 What 1 did say ori that occasion was 
 that I was in favor of legalizing 
 marriage between a man and his deceased 
 wife's sister if there was any immediate 
 haste fur doing so ; but that iu the face 
 of the very respectable memorials that 
 have been presented from evei-y portion 
 of the country, and in the face, also, of 
 the conflicting counsels that prevail in 
 
 regard to the details of the Bill among 
 the heails of another very large ilenomin- 
 ation, I thought that my proper coui-so 
 was to vote for the postponement of the 
 I- easuro fi)r another sesHion. I also said 
 that I was decidedly oppoHcd to that 
 portion of the Bill which wa.s intendetl 
 lo Ic 'ilizu the marriage of a man with 
 the Widow of his deceased brother. 1 
 could not, under any circumstiinceB, 
 vote for the second portion of the Bill. 
 Neither can I understand how any mem- 
 ber can support the second reading of 
 the measure, who is not in *avor of the 
 whole Bill. 
 
 Hon. Mr. MACFARL\NE-I di<l 
 not at all misunderstand the hon. gentle- 
 men. The statement which I made is, I 
 think, entirely in harmony with tho 
 explanation. 
 
 Hon. Mr. POWER~Tho question 
 before the House is whether we shall 
 support the resolution of the hon. gen- 
 tleman from Amherst, to defer this Bill 
 until another session, or whether we 
 shall j)as8 it once ; and, probably, 
 strictly speaking, a discussion of the 
 merits of the Bill is not altogether 
 necessary. The^e is a good deal of force 
 in what was said by the hon. Senator 
 from Richmond, that it was not neces- 
 sary to enter into any very elaborate 
 discussion of the merits of the measure, 
 but thai'^ we should simply decides 
 whether we should not postpone it, on 
 the ground that it was not absolutely 
 necessary to pass it )iow. There 
 is a great deal of authority on 
 the subject. A somewhat similar Bill 
 has been discussed several times, and 
 with great ability, in the Imperial Par- 
 liament. This Bill has also been debated 
 in the other branch of this Legislatxire, 
 and has been discussed in some letters pub- 
 lished by Judge Loranger, of Montreal, 
 in the Montreal Minerve, probably with 
 greater ability and accuracy than by 
 any other gentleman in this country, I 
 feel that, while that is true, and mem- 
 bers in this House can get access to all 
 the authorities on the subject, the public 
 at large, who are to consider the ques- 
 tion, if tho resolution of thejhou. Senator 
 from Amherst passes, have not the means 
 of getting at those authorities, and I 
 think that, to a certain extent, it is the 
 duty of gentlemen who are in favor of 
 
24 
 
 post;)0!iement, to si;pi)ly to the public 
 seme materials u|)oii whicli tliey may 
 base tlieif judgment. I do not propose, 
 however, to delay the House for any 
 f^niAt length of time. We are asked to 
 pass this. Bill at once. Now, unless 
 there ai-e circumstances of peculiar 
 urgency, aside from the ralure of the 
 Bill, I do not think that wo should do 
 so ; and, when -we come to look at the 
 circumstances, I do not think that they 
 ■will be found to be of tliat character. 
 There is no very strong popular feeling 
 in favor of the measure outside of Par- 
 liament ; in fact there was none of any 
 kind until this Bill was introduced in 
 the House of Commons. The case is not 
 the same as in England, where petitions, 
 signed by hundreds of thousands of 
 persons, were presented to Parliament on 
 the subject. There were no petitions 
 l)rcsented here before the Bill vvas intro- 
 duced in the other House, and since then 
 a great majority of the petitions have 
 been against the measure. It has been 
 said that this Bill s in favor of the fair 
 sex. I do not think that there is any 
 evidence in support of that asser- 
 tion ; and I think that the majority 
 of that sex are altogether opposed 
 to the Bill. We cannot be asked to pass 
 this Bill in a hurry because of the ex- 
 istence of a similar law in England, The 
 fact is the reverse ; instead of assimilat- 
 ing our law to that of England, we 
 should be making it different. Aside 
 from the mterits of the Bill, the only rea- 
 son why we should pass it this session is, 
 that the hon. gentleman who introduced 
 it in the other branch of the Legislature 
 is very popular, very much liked by his 
 brother members, and very resolute and 
 determined in carrying his point. While 
 he deserves all credit for that, I do not 
 think that it is any special reason why 
 we should support this Bill. I think we 
 should consider the measure on its 
 own merits, and not otherwise. Looking 
 at the somewhat revolutionary char- 
 acter of the Bill, I do not think 
 we should pass it this session, unless some 
 urgent necessity is shewn for it. No such 
 necessity has been shewn, nor even al- 
 leged to exist. In the case of the In- 
 solvent Act last year, which has been re- 
 ferred to by some two or three hon. gen- 
 tlemen, it might have been stated that 
 there was some necessity for haste, be- 
 
 cause it might be claimed thnt the busi- 
 ness of the country was suffering ; but 
 thero is no such urgency in this cas^^ I 
 wish to call the attention of hon. gentle- 
 men who may be disposed to support the 
 pi'inciple of the Bill, tc the fact *hat, to 
 my mind, at any rate, even if the prin- 
 ciple should be admitted as correct, this 
 is not the bill which ought to pass. 
 The measure is illogical and incon- 
 sistent. It allows a man to 
 the sister of his deceased wife, 
 it does not allow him to mai-ry 
 niece 
 further 
 If the 
 
 , though tlie 
 
 removed 
 Bill is to 
 
 marry 
 whilst 
 her 
 
 degree 
 
 niecp IS a 
 than the sister, 
 be altered at all, it 
 should be changed to include the niece. 
 I do not think we are bound to under- 
 take, at this stage of the session, to 
 manufacture a new Bill, Then, the 
 second section, if hon, gentlemen will 
 look at it, is ex post/acto legislation, 
 which is always reprobated in England, 
 and is forbidden by the constitutions 
 of the different states of the neighboring 
 republic. This second section interferes 
 with the rights of persons acquired under 
 the existing law, and interferes with 
 those rights on behalf of persons who 
 have broken that law, I think it is un- 
 just and improper. But, even in this, the 
 Bill is illogical, because, while it legal- 
 izes certain marriages contracted between 
 n.en and the sisters of their deceased 
 wives, it does not legalize all of them, as 
 will be seen by reading the second sec- 
 tion, I should like to call the attention 
 of the Senator from Fredericton (Mr, 
 Odell) to the fact that he was in error 
 when he said that the Bill did not 
 affect existing rights of children. 
 
 The section says : "All siich 
 heretofore contracted, the parties whei'eto 
 are living as husband and wife at the 
 time of the passing of this Act, shall be 
 held to have been lawfully contracted." 
 If lawfully contracted, the children of 
 such marriages would share in the pro- 
 perty, as well as the children of the former 
 wives. 
 
 Hon. Mr. ODELL- 
 proviso? 
 
 -Is there not a 
 
 Hon. Mr. POWER— No; it has been 
 struck out. If a marriage of this sort 
 was contracted five or six years ago, and 
 children were born, and one of the par- 
 ties died, those children would be ille- 
 
 f 
 
 jL 
 
26 
 
 i 
 
 -l. 
 
 «• 
 
 i 
 
 gitimate, while, if both of the parties 
 were alive, their children would be 
 legitimate. Now, T do not think any- 
 thing couid be rao.-e illogical or unfair 
 than that part of the Bill. Another cir- 
 cumstance connected with it, which has 
 been adverted to by some hon. gentlemen 
 who have spoken, is, that it difl'ers from 
 the Bills introduced in England, and I 
 believe from those passed in Australia, 
 inaamuch as it legalizes marriage with 
 the widow of a deceased brother. That 
 is repugnant to the sense of right and 
 propriety of almost every man, and is 
 something that I hope will not pass this 
 House. With reference to such mar- 
 riages, in addition to the arguments used 
 against marriage with a deceased wife's 
 sister, there are a number of others. 
 There is an express prohibition in Scrip- 
 ture. The hon. gentleman from Belle- 
 ville (Mr. Flint) was not able to find a 
 prohibition, but, instead of looking at 
 the eighteenth section of chap. 18 of 
 Leviticus, he should have looked at the 
 16th, where he Avould have found an 
 express prohibition of marriage with the 
 widow of a deceased brother. In the 2 1 st 
 verse of the same chapter it is pronoun- 
 ced an unlawful thing, and the punish- 
 ment is, that the couple should be 
 without children. The hon. gentleman 
 referred to the passage in Deuteronomy 
 as exceptional. Now, to my mind, the 
 exception in this instance proves the 
 general rule. I am confirmed in that 
 belief by the fact that, in the twenty- 
 seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, twenty- 
 third verse, there is a very serious con- 
 demnation against persons who are 
 guilty of a similar offence. As I under- 
 stand the Senator from Belleville, he 
 argued that the Scriptutes do not recog- 
 nize affinity at all. The hon. gentleman 
 fi'om Cumberland (Mr. Macfarlane) 
 seemed to take the same ground. Now, 
 in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, 
 fourteenth verse, I find that, -ith refer- 
 ence to the wife of an uncle, intercourse 
 with whom is forbidden, she is described 
 as one " who is joined to thee by affinity." 
 The Scriptures very strongly recognize 
 the relationship of affinity. In the. 
 seventoenth section of the same chapter 
 of Leviticus, and in other places where the 
 relationshi}) is merely one of affinity, 
 it is held that the flesh of the husband is 
 the flesh of the wife, and that intercourse 
 
 with certain relatives of the wife is 
 incest. On this point, I will call atten- 
 tion to a letter which was published in 
 the Globe the other day, by Mr. Hirsch- 
 felder, a Jewish gentleman living in 
 Toronto, a man of considerable ])roniin- 
 ence in the Jewish body, who is in favor 
 of marriage with the sister of a deceased 
 wife. Speaking of marriage with the 
 widow of a deceased brother, he says : — 
 
 " Taking all things into consideration, I 
 cannot see upon what grounds the law pro- 
 hibiting an alliance of a brother with a de- 
 ceased brother's widow can be abolished, un- 
 less it is upon the supposition that the Mosaic 
 marriage laws, like some other laws, were 
 only intended for the ancient Israelites, and, 
 therefore, have no force now. 
 
 " Now, Mr. Editor, in order to comprehend 
 fully the force of many of the Mosaic laws, it 
 is necessary to divide them into three princi- 
 pal classes : — (1) Precautionary laws; (2) 
 Sanitary laws ; (3) Moral laws." 
 
 • » • « • 
 
 " To the third class belong all such laws 
 which are conducive to foster morality, and, 
 as might be naturally expected, they are by 
 far the most numerous. Now, I think it will 
 hardly be denied that the observance of these 
 laws are just as binding to Christians as to the 
 Jews, and I think it will be admitted at once 
 that the marriage laws must certainly belong 
 to this class, and, if such is the case, I can 
 hardly see how the law prohibiting ' a brother 
 marrying his brother's wife ' can consistently 
 be abolished . There are, certainly, very strong 
 grounds to be urged against such alliances ; 
 but, as I have above stated, it is impossible to 
 notice them in a newspaper article." 
 
 I think, hon. gentlemen, enough has been 
 said to shew that, as regards marriage 
 with the widow of a deceased brother, 
 there can be no reasonable doub^ as to 
 the law laid down in the Scripture. 
 As to marriage with a deceased wife'n 
 sister, the scriptural argument has been, 
 dealt with already by the hon. gentle- 
 man from Amherst, and has been dis- 
 cussed in the other House and elsewhere, 
 and hon. gentlemen are quite familiar- 
 with it ; but there is one point to which 
 attention" has been called, to a certain 
 extent, and to which I shall again refer ;. 
 that is this fact : that, whatever tho 
 Jewish law on this subject may have 
 been, there is no doubt as to what the 
 Chi'istian law hsvs been. One of 
 greatest changes that wa? made by 
 change from the Jev/ish 
 Christian dispensation, was 
 elevation of the married 
 
 to 
 in 
 
 the 
 the 
 the 
 tho 
 
 bcate. 
 
 The marriage tie was made more sacred, 
 
26 
 
 and the union between husband and wife 
 rendered more intimate and more diffi- 
 cull. to dissolve. Divorce, which had 
 been allowed in the old law, was not 
 toleiated in the new. Polygamy, which 
 had exiated under the old law, was done 
 away with, and husband and wife were 
 declared by the Redeemer himself to be 
 one flesh. Looking back on ecclesiastical 
 history, we find that, at a very early date 
 in the history of the church, the canon law, 
 in dealing with the question of marriage, 
 placed the relations of wives in exactly 
 the same position as those of the husbands 
 themselves. Not later, I think, than 
 about 300 years after the Christian era, 
 we find the law in that position, and for 
 hundreds of years the canon law was as 
 strict as this — that marriage was forbidden 
 not only between those who were nearly 
 related by blood or afiinity, but between 
 persons related by blood or affinity as 
 far as the seventh degree, and it was only 
 at the fourth council of Lateran, in the 
 beginning of the thirteenth century, that 
 the prohibition was limited to the fourth 
 degree. Now, this canon law was the 
 law of all Europe up to the sixteenth 
 century. It was recognized by cap. 22, 
 of the 25th year of Henry the Eighth, 
 and by a subsequent statute of that 
 monarch, as the law of England, and it 
 has so been accepted down to the present 
 day. It was said by the Senator from 
 Alma (Mr. Penny) that, up to 1835, the 
 time that Lord Lyndhurst's Act was 
 passed, such marriages were not void, but 
 were voidable. He is in error in that. 
 They were void, but they had to be 
 declared so by tlie Ecclesiastical Court, 
 and this Act of Lord Lyndhurst's declared 
 them void in the eyes of the common 
 law, without any action of the Ecclesias- 
 tical Courts. In order to shew what the 
 sentiment of the early Christian world 
 was on this subject, we cannot go to any 
 better authority than the Greek; Church. 
 In that church they preserve most of the 
 old practices and discipline of the early 
 «hurch, and, in the Greek Church, those 
 marriages are absolutely void. It was 
 not until the middle ages, and after a 
 struggle tliiit endi.ired for -some time 
 that the right of the Popes to grant dis- 
 pensations for such marriages was recog- 
 nized ; but the church has always 
 been hostile to them. As an argu- 
 ment in favor of this Bill, we 
 
 have been referred to the practice 
 in the United States, and also, I think, 
 to the j)ractice in Germany. Now, I do 
 not think, when W9 want a model[for our 
 social life, we should go to the United 
 States. I do not think the morals of 
 that country are such as to induce us 
 to follow in their footsteps, but very 
 much the i*everse. Whatever good things 
 there may be in the United States, I 
 do not think that their domestic moralitj' "^ 
 is more admirable than our own, or 
 anything that we should be anxious to 
 imitate j and Prussia, wh-ch, I think, is 
 the only country where those marriages 
 are allowed without any dispensation, is 
 undoubtedly the most immoral country 
 in Europe. A very singular argument 
 was used by the Senator from Belleville 
 (Mr. Flint), that it we allowed this Bill 
 to stand over for another year, there 
 would be a great deal of agitation against 
 it. That seems a veiy extraordinary 
 argument. I am surpiised that a gen- 
 tleman, who is generally so ready to 
 recognize the right of the people to be 
 heard, should take such a position in 
 this instance. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FLINT-— I did not say that 
 there would be an agitation against the 
 Bill. I stated that it would creates great 
 agitation throughout the country. The 
 hon. gentleman is just about as wrong 
 in that as his quotations of Scripture. 
 
 Hon. Mr. POWER— If the hon. gen- 
 tleman will take the trouble to examine 
 the passages in Leviticus, he will find 
 that I have quoted them correctly. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FLINT— I examined them 
 before the hon. gentleman was born. 
 
 Hon. Mr. POWER.— I do not know 
 whether it was the hon. gentleman from 
 Belleville who said that this Bill was op- 
 posed as if it obliged every man to marry 
 the sister of his deceased wife. I think 
 there is another way of looking at it. 
 One would imagine, from the anxiety of 
 hon. gentlemen to get this Bill passed at 
 once, that there were no other women to 
 be married but sisters-in-law. There are 
 women enough in the world for men to 
 marry without contracting aueh alliancesi. 
 An argument that has been used by almost 
 every hon. gentleman who has supported 
 the Bill is, that orphan children would 
 have the guardianship and care of their 
 aunts, who are the best persons to take 
 
 
27 
 
 charge of thcui. Thnt is true as the law 
 stands now. A deceased wife's sister can 
 remain in the house with her brother-in- 
 law and take care of them ; but, if you 
 jmssed this Bill, she could not do that. 
 She would have to leave the house, be- 
 cause she would be in the position 
 of any other unniairied woman there. 
 It has already been said that 
 if she becomes a step-niotiier, she ceases 
 to be an aunt ; so that the orphan chil- 
 dren would lose by this Bill, in any case. 
 The hon. gentleman referred to the 
 woman who had seven husbands, and the 
 problem as to who was to be her hus- 
 band in the resurrection. We are not 
 now dealing with the future life, but with 
 this life, and we should confine ourselves 
 to that. I should like to say a word 
 with reference to the church to which I 
 myself belong, since it has been referred 
 to by the hon. gentlemen from Alma (Mr. 
 Penny), and St. John (Mr. Dever.) The 
 law of the Church of Rome, as everyone 
 knows, almost from the commencement 
 of the Christian era down to the present 
 time, has forbidden those marriages. For 
 a long time, dispensations were not 
 granted under any circumstances ; now 
 they are granted under urgent circum 
 stances, and obtained with a great deal of 
 diflBculty. The cases in which dispensa 
 tions are granted are exceptional. The 
 question is whether, looking at the mat- 
 ter from the standpoint of the Church to 
 which I belong, it is better to have the 
 law of the land agree with the general 
 law of the church, or with the exceptional 
 cases. To my mind, it is better to have 
 the law of the land agree with the 
 general law of the church. The fact 
 that the law of the land is hostile to such 
 marriages, and makes the issue of them 
 illegitimate, is a discouragement to 
 persons entering into alliances which are 
 contrary to the law of the church. If a 
 dispensation is granted, the children are 
 legitimate in the eye of the church, and 
 there is no stigma affixed to them in the 
 eyes of other members of the Church. 
 With reference to the rights of property, 
 any difficulty of that kind can be sub- 
 ui [jiA\lly got over by ;i man making his 
 W]^uiK)8 the proper way. That is all that 
 I propose to say for myself ; but I would 
 call the attention of the House to soi-.-i 
 language used in the House of Lords in 
 1873. I wish to quote from the si)eech. 
 
 on the motion to reject the Bill to 
 legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sis- 
 ter, made by Lord O'Hagan. He had been 
 Lord Chancellor for Ireland, was one of 
 the best lawyers in the three kingdoms, 
 and his orthdUoxy. as a Catholic, was 
 unquestioned. He made this speech 
 several yeai-s after the evidence, which 
 has been quoted by the hon. gentleman 
 from Alma, had been given by Cardinal 
 Wiseman, At page 1,888 of the Han- 
 sard for that year. Lord O'Hagan is 
 reported as having used the following 
 language : — 
 
 " I have the sincerest sympathy with any 
 innocent persons who suffer from the law as it 
 exists . From some of them I have received 
 communications which have touched me 
 deeply. But I cannot pity those by whom 
 that law has been deliberately violated, on 
 the prompting of passion, or in concession to 
 a supposed expediency, without consideration 
 of the fatal results to trusting women and un- 
 born children. If it were possible to relieve, 
 in cases of real hardship, with due regard 
 to the momentous issues involved in the con- 
 troversy, 1 suppose we should all be glad to 
 aid in doing so ; but we have to consider what 
 is riglit and wise, and for the highest interests 
 of the society in which we live ; we cannot 
 play with them according to the impulse of 
 our feelings. We are bound to deal with 
 them as judgment and conscience dictate 
 when we come to touch that family life, 
 which is the very corner stone of our social 
 state, and, according to its moral condition, 
 becomes the glory or the sliame, the strength 
 or the destruction of a people." 
 
 And again, at page 1,891, Lord O'Hagan 
 says : — 
 
 " We are the ' heirs of all the ages,' and 
 we should not lightly set aside the instruction 
 which they give. If you would maintain a 
 Christian civilization in the world, hold high 
 the ideal of tlie Christian marriage . Do not 
 abase its dignity ; do not dim its brightness . 
 The time is not apt for meddling rudely with 
 that great ideal, or, as you are asked to do to- 
 night, with principles which are its bulwarks, 
 and from which it derives its beauty and its 
 strength. Old landmarks are vanishing away. 
 Doctrines ol international law and political 
 justice, which long governed the public con- 
 science of mankind, are losing their power. 
 The elements of socialistic anarchy are work- 
 ing through the nations, and we should be- 
 ware ot precipitating the time when laxness 
 as to the marriage bond may help to bring us 
 to the condition of Home, as described by 
 Gibbon, ' when marriages were without 
 affection, and love was without delicacy or 
 respect,' and when corruption in that regard 
 was one of the worst instruments in the 
 overthrow of the mightiest of empires. 
 But, my lords, if all I have said were 
 to be disregarded ; if there were no tradition 
 
28 
 
 or authority, or religious influence to war. 
 runt tlio rejection of this Bill, I should 
 not oppose it in the interest of society, and 
 for the maintenance of the dignity and purity 
 of the family life ; I should oppose it because it 
 is calculated to alter the relations of the sexes 
 in a way most serious and most mischievous. 
 The connection of the brother and sister is 
 dolichte and tender, and so ought to be that of 
 the brother-in-law and the sistor-in-Iaw — a 
 connection of love and trust, without the 
 taint of passion or irregular desire, and thus 
 it will continue, if you refuse to make legal 
 marriage possible between them. Temptation 
 is bred of opportunity, and dies when it is 
 lost." 
 
 I shall say no more, except to end, as I 
 began^ with the hope that this House will 
 not pass such a revolutionary measui-e as 
 this ; but will grant the very reasonable 
 and modest request contained in the peti- 
 tions that have been addressed to the 
 House, and involved in the resolution 
 moved by the Senator from Amherst, to 
 wait one year, to give Parliament and 
 the country time to consider the matter. 
 
 Hon. Mr. GIBBS— I have listened 
 with a very great deal of attention, dur- 
 ing the whole of this discussion, and 
 have endeavored, if possible, to hear if 
 anything could be advanced by any hon. 
 gentleman, that would tend, in any way, 
 to shake the oi)inion which I had formed 
 in the past, and which should guide me 
 in the vote which I shall give 
 on the present occasion. I am 
 bound to say that, ably as 
 the discussion has been conducted 
 on both sides, from the beginning 
 until now, I am really more strongly 
 impressed with the correctness of the 
 views I have held in the past, than T was 
 at the commencement of the debate. 
 The only argument used by those who 
 are opposed to the Bill, for the purpose 
 of affecting the vote to be given on the 
 question, is the one that there should be 
 delay in order that more light may be 
 obtained on this subject, which we are 
 told has been discussed for the last 1,880 
 years, and hon. gentlemen ask that they 
 may have 1.881 years in order to form a 
 correct opinion upon it. It has also 
 been said that this Bill is intended to 
 give relief to a few individuals ; that, in 
 point of fact, if this law h,ul not hoen 
 
 violated bv a few persons, there would 
 liave been no debate to-day, there would 
 liave been no movement in the country, 
 and theie would have bo?n no petiti(jiis 
 
 prosentert l)efore the House, nor would 
 this Bill have been introduced. Taking 
 it for granted that this statement 
 is substantuJ'y correct, and for 
 the purposes of my argument, I am 
 willing to assume that it is so, I 
 ask if Parliament has not, on all 
 occasions, bt n willing to afford relief to 
 even one humble individual, not hun- 
 dreds, as we are told in this case, who 
 have violated the law of the land, and 
 who are now asking for relief at the 
 hands of Parliament ? I say Parlia- 
 ment has always been ready to give 
 relief to individuals, and, besides, we are 
 informed that, in the Province of Quebec, 
 the children of these marriages are in- 
 capable of inheriting property, an<l, in 
 fact, that under the law, as it stands in 
 that Province, they are illegitimates. 
 The parties who have entered into the 
 bonds of matrimony under these cir- 
 cumstances did not believe they were 
 violating the law, for, had they so 
 believed, they had only to cross the bor- 
 ders, and enter into those bonds without 
 violating the laws of the neighboring 
 Kepublic, and could return to Canada to 
 live as man and wife. Now, we are 
 informed that we are not to go to the 
 United States to obtain lessons on public 
 morality. I grant, it if you please. 
 Another hon. gentleman has based his 
 argument on the fact that England has 
 refused this Bill for years and, therefore, 
 Canada ought to refuse it also. I do 
 not think, bovever, we should be 
 asked to look to countries that have re- 
 fused to pass this measure, but rather to 
 the colonies and countries that have 
 adopted it, to ascertain what the effect 
 of such a law has been. I ask the hon. 
 gentleman who has based his argument 
 — a very able one it was, from his point 
 of view (but very illogical) — what the 
 effect of such a law is, or has been, in 
 countries where it has been adopted 1 
 We are asked to believe that it will have 
 a bad effect in the Dominion of Canada ; 
 that it will, in point of fact, shock the 
 moral sense of the community. We 
 know that it has not produced injury 
 elsewhere when adopted, and its effect 
 here, I believe, will be to act at rest a 
 question that we desire to have settled. 
 I desire that we should follow the ex- 
 ample of the colonies of Great Britain, 
 the United States and the coun- 
 
 •^ • 
 
29 
 
 tries of Europe— Germany and Switzer- 
 laml — where this law prevails, and 
 draw our inferences as to its effects 
 in those countries, rather than from 
 countries that have opposed it from 
 time immemorial, and still continue to do 
 so. I admit that there are many things 
 we might copy from English legislation, 
 but I ask my hon. friend from Frederic- 
 ton if there is any force in his argument, 
 that we should, in every instance, assimi- 
 late our laws to those of England? 
 Would the Statute have been passed in 
 Canada, which is now in force — I allude 
 to the abolition of the law of primogeni- 
 ture — if we wei-e to follow the law of 
 England'? Does the hon. gentleman 
 wish us to repeal that law^ in order to 
 assimilate our legislation to that of Eng- 
 land ? It was an Act which met with the 
 approval of the people of Canada, and I 
 have never heard one word said against 
 it from that day to this, nor do I believe 
 that there is a solitary individual who 
 desires, to-day, to see that law repealed. 
 Another suggestion is that this Bill 
 should have a snspondiiig clause, if it 
 is passed, but I tliiuk that, as every law 
 passed here is liable to be disallowed 
 within two years by the home authorities, 
 then, I say, if that is the case, instead 
 of postponing the passage of this Bill, it 
 is a more urgent reason why we should 
 pass it at once, for, if there are two 
 years within which it can be disallowed, 
 we may, at the end of that term, have to 
 begin de novo. It has been stated in 
 this debate that the Act passed in Aus- 
 tralia was not allowed for two years, and 
 it did not receive the Royal assent until 
 it had been passed the second time by 
 the Australian Parliament. This being 
 the case, the sooner we pass this Bill the 
 better. We are bound to pass it, and to 
 give relief to those who seek it. No 
 persons are more likely to come for relief 
 to Parliament than those who are affected 
 by the law as it now stands. I have no 
 friends of my own seeking relief, and, 
 therefore, I do not speak from any in- 
 terested point of view, as it is not a mat- 
 ter of the slightest consequence to me, 
 personally, whether the Bill passes or not; 
 but I do hope, in the interest of those 
 who seek relief at our hands, that hon. 
 gentlemen will vote against the amend- 
 ment of the hon. Senator from Am- 
 Jierst. It may be, upon his part, very 
 
 good tactics to introduce his motion 
 in the shape he has framed it ; it 
 may le, as an old ])arliamen- 
 tarian, that he expects, by this method, to 
 defeat the Bill, but I think it would have 
 been a more straightforward and a more 
 manly way to have met the Bill squarely 
 upon its merits, and let the vote be taken 
 upon its merits. I agree with my hon. 
 friend opposite (Mr. Macfarl, ue), when 
 he said it was an endeavor to catch those 
 who were undecided in their opinions. To 
 such, the amendment of my hon. friend 
 from Amherst comes as a relief, because, 
 in voting for it, they feel that they are 
 not voting against the principle of the 
 Bill, but are simply asking for its post- 
 ponement. Is there an hon. gentle luan 
 in this House who would rise in his plaoe 
 and say that he expects, by this time 
 twelve months, he will have more light 
 than he has at the i)resent moment? I 
 venture to say that there has not been a 
 single argument adduced in this debate 
 from the Scriptures that bears on the sub- 
 ject, and if the hon. gentleman who did 
 quote from Leviticus had read the whole 
 chapter, the sense of the House would 
 have been against his interpretation of it. 
 I am bound to say this : that hon. gentle- 
 men cannot vote upon this question on 
 any other principle than according to 
 their own convictions, and I admit that 
 it is very difficult to overcome one's pre- 
 judices. If, in early life, we have imbibed 
 certain views — religious ones particularly 
 — I know how difficult it is to get rid of 
 them in after life; no matter how one 
 may reason upon them, they cleave 
 closely to him all through his natural 
 life. I know, also, the respect that is 
 paid by members of any church to the 
 doctrines and teachings of that ^hurch, 
 whatever they may be, and, although I 
 am at all times disposed, myself, to give 
 due respect to opinions coming from high 
 authority of that kind, yet, when they 
 come into conflict with my own convic- 
 tions, I put them aside, and act accord- 
 ing to my own views. I must confess 
 my surprise at the paucity of the argu- 
 ments that have been placed before this 
 House in opposition to this Bill. I do 
 not believe, and, if 1 stated my own con- 
 victions, I would add that I doubt very 
 much if hon. gentlemen who advanced 
 those arguments before this House think 
 that the passage of this Bill will create 
 
so 
 
 such a revoliitioii in the country as they 
 would fain make us believe. I am sRtis- 
 fied this measure would be accepted by the 
 people as the settlement of a vexed ques- 
 tion, and I, for one, would be very sorry, 
 coming so recently into this hon. 
 House, to find it arrayed against the 
 other branch of the Legislature, after its 
 having pronounced itself in such an un- 
 mistakable manner upon this ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Hon. Mr. VIDAL.— At this late hour 
 and protracted stage of the debate, I 
 fully recognize the propriety of confining 
 my remarks within a limited space. I 
 rise to supi)ort the amendment proposed 
 by the hon. member from Amherst, and 
 I must say that, in my judgment, the 
 severe comments which have been made 
 ujion it are not justified. It has been 
 alleged that postponement of the Bill has 
 not been asked for. I think the hon. 
 gentleman shewod most distinctly and 
 most cbarly, as did other hon. gentle- 
 men, during the course of this debate, 
 that the petitions presented to this 
 House against the Bill, have, all of 
 them, asked that it should either be 
 rejected or postponed for one year ; and, 
 consequently, the amendment which has 
 been proposed is in strict accordance 
 with the prayer of the i)etitioners. Those 
 l^etitions are numerous. It has been 
 stated that there have been over sixty of 
 them, i have hurriedly counted them, 
 but have not reached that number. I 
 remark, however, that the petitions for 
 the Bill up to the day before yesterday 
 amounted to only two, and I think, with 
 my hon. friend from Fredericton, that 
 the thirty-six petitions which were 
 bound together, presented at one time, 
 and came from one city, might with all 
 propriety be regarded as one petition. 
 If so, we have the fact, worthy, surely, 
 of some consideration, that there are 
 sixty petiticii . against the Bill, and only 
 three in its favor. It must be admitted 
 that J there is a great deal of feeling, 
 both within and without this House, 
 with regard to this question, which has 
 been long before the pu! lie, and has de- 
 veloped a wide divergence of 0])inion ; 
 it must, therefore, be approached with 
 gre.at rnn-iacration in order to form a 
 correct judgment upon it. I have lis- 
 tened very carefully to the entire debate, 
 and I am constrained to say that, either 
 
 I have seriously misafiprehended the 
 statements that have been made in the 
 House justifying the introduction of this 
 measure, or the House misapprehends 
 the real character of the agitation in 
 favor of tlie Bill. It has been alleged 
 that great suffering prevails in the com- 
 miniity on account of the present state 
 of the J, //. I will ask hon. gentle- 
 men has there been one peiition pre- 
 sented to this House from any person 
 who claims to have suffered in the least 
 degree from the operation of the law a» 
 it now stands 1 Has there been one single 
 case of hardship or injustice presented to 
 the House to shew that this Bill — sa 
 subversive of long-establislied institu- 
 tions — is really necessary to remedy it I 
 or, has proof been adduced that any evils 
 have, in this country, resulted from the 
 present law 1 We have had strong state- 
 ments and fancy pictures of domestic un- 
 happiness presented as evils necessarily 
 connected with the law, as it has been for 
 centuries, and equally fanciful pictures 
 have been painted in glowing colors of 
 the beneficial results that will follow the 
 passage of the Bill before us, but none of 
 those illustrations will bear examination. 
 My hon. friend from Belleville (Mr. 
 Flint), gave a very pathetic illustration 
 to shew how suitable it is for the sister of 
 a deceased wife to take charge of the chil- 
 dren she might leave behind, and how 
 desirable that the husband should marry 
 her, rather than bring in a stranger ; but, 
 in order to secure the carrying out of his 
 views, he would have to make this law 
 compulsory, obliging him to marry her, 
 for he seems to forget that the man 
 would have some freedom of choice in the 
 matter, and, although he might have the 
 sister-in-law there, he might fimcy some 
 other woman for a helpmate, and the 
 dreaded results might follow. But, apart 
 from these social considerations, I would 
 rather urge the point to which I 
 have alluded : that no jierson has 
 come before this House to shew 
 that any evil result whatever has flowed 
 from this law, as it stands, and the peti- 
 tions that have come have not asked ua 
 to remedy an evil, but simply to pass 
 this Bill. They are not the outcry of a 
 suffering people coming to the Legisla- 
 ture for relief ; they are got up at the 
 request of parties in the House who have 
 desired to sustain the Bill by getting 
 
31 
 
 this outside help. That is, practicallv, 
 the character of the petitions that have 
 been presented in its favor. Much has 
 been said about the state of the law, on 
 
 this subject, in England, I will admit 
 that, in England, there is ample room 
 for agitation on this question. I am not 
 surprised that there are i)etitions, signed 
 by thousands of people, presented to tbe 
 British Parliament, asking relief from a 
 real practical difficulty in the law, as it 
 stands there. But we are not under 
 that law ; no law is in force in Canada, 
 declaring those marriages void. In 
 England, they are under an actually 
 oppressive law — a law which, were I in 
 England, I would do all in my power, if 
 not to repeal, at least so to amend it as 
 to remove the clauses which bar the 
 issue of such marriages from inheritance 
 of their fathers' property. My hon. friend 
 from Woodstock has told us that great 
 difficulty was experienced in the western 
 paits of Ontario in consequence of our 
 law, and that many people, on account of 
 it, had to go to the United States to get 
 married. I question if he could produce 
 any cases of parties who went to the 
 United States to be married because the 
 law of Ontario makes such marriage 
 illegal if it takes place here. The law of 
 Ontario does not make such marriages 
 illegal, and, if people go to Buffalo, 
 Detroit, or other American cities to gel 
 married, it is simply because it is con- 
 venient for them to go there, or it suits 
 their purpose in some other way. There 
 is not, in the Province of Ontario, any 
 law which throws any obstacle in the 
 way of those unions, or disinherits the 
 issue of such marriages. I challenge any 
 hon. gentleman here to produce any sin- 
 gle instance on record where a court in 
 Ontario has decided that the issue of one 
 of those marriages is illegitimate ! It 
 cannot be done. Whence, then, this cry 
 for relief? Where this o[)pression 
 that the people are groaning under? 
 The community has never asked 
 for this Bill, for the peojile have 
 not sufiered from the evils com- 
 plained of. Now, let us look 
 at the relation of this question to 
 the Province of Quebec. I believe, from 
 the remarks that have fallen from hon. 
 members, that the issue of such marriages 
 are not considered to be the lawful heirs 
 to the property of their father, should he 
 
 die intestate. Supposing it is so, are we, 
 hon. gentlemen, legislating for the par- 
 ticular interests of a few individuals in 
 that one Province ? Is not that a ques- 
 tion which is solely and entirely in the 
 hands of the Provincial Legislature? 
 I do not mean to say that marriage is, 
 but as to this question of holding pro- 
 perty, is it not a fact that to the pro- 
 vincial legislature is confided the duty 
 of legislating with respect to property 
 and civil rights ? and can we constitu- 
 tionally legislate to my that the issue of 
 such marriages shall be heirs-at-lav/ ? 
 They certainly on rrJit to get that relief; 
 but it is the local legislature alone that 
 should grant it. I am very much sur- 
 prised at the assent that has been given 
 in the other Chamber to the Bill*now 
 before us. Gentlemen wljose battle- 
 cry has been : Notre religion, noire 
 langue, et nos Ms, have advocated 
 and voted for Ihc passing of a measure 
 in direct contradiction to the law of the 
 church to which they belong, and are 
 asking this Legislature to interfere with 
 those laws which they value so highly, 
 and which one would suppose they would 
 desire to keep in force. But I have 
 other and more serious objections to the 
 Bill than its being unnecessary and un- 
 asked for, and the chief is that it nmy 
 possibly be a measure in direct opposi- 
 tion to Divine law. I piesume that, if it 
 could be distinctly shewn that it were so, 
 this House would not commit itself to 
 any such legislation. One part of this 
 Bill IS, in my judgment, clearly and dis- 
 tinctly a contravention of Divine law. 
 I have not the least hesitation 
 whatever in saying that I re- 
 gard the part of the first clause le- 
 galizing the marriage of a man with the 
 widow of his deceased brother as contrary 
 to Divine law, and I could not consent 
 to the passing of this Bill while it con- 
 tains such a provision. Although my 
 objection is not so strong against the 
 first clause, I have very serious doubts 
 even as to the propriety of legalizin<r 
 marriage with the sister of a deceased 
 wife. If it should be so, that this Bill 
 IS in contravention of the Divine law 
 what are we about to do ? Do we sup- 
 pose that we can improve on the govern- 
 ment and laws of the Almighty ? Is it 
 not a fact that every law He has given 
 to man has been designed for man's 
 
32 
 
 good ] He does not condescend to ex- 
 plain all the I'eiisons for giving that law, 
 or all the results to flow from it ; if He 
 has laid down a law barring such niar- 
 
 of 
 
 riages, 
 j^ood 
 
 laws are 
 command 
 doing of 
 
 maintain it is for the 
 humanity. None of His 
 arbitrary enactments, but 
 or prohibit, becaiise the 
 this, or the refraining from 
 that, are conducive to man's health and 
 happiness. I think, under the circum- 
 stances, we ought to be very careful 
 indeed to confine ourselves to that kind 
 of legislation which is clearly within our 
 jurisdiction, as relating to things earthly 
 rather than spiritual. I should have no 
 hesitation whatever in supporting a bill 
 which declai-ed merely as to property 
 that the children of these marriages 
 should be considered as lawful inheritors 
 Oi" it, but I do object to see on the Statute 
 book of our country an act, the terras of 
 which may be said to be in direct 
 contradiction to the Divine law. There 
 is manifestly a great difference of opin- 
 ion as to whether it is so or not. The 
 Catholic Church of Rome, a very large 
 and influential body of Christians, by its 
 laws — not enacted as of its own will and 
 authority, as we make laws here, but 
 drawn from the law of God, declare this 
 aflSnity a bar to marriage, although grant- 
 ing a dispensation in some particular 
 cases. Then look at the Church of Eng- 
 land, comprising such large numbers of 
 highly educated and talented theologians 
 ol unquestioned wisdom and piety, who 
 afl[ir'i.? clearly that this aflinity is, by the 
 word of God, a bar to marriage. Do these 
 opinions count for nothing ? I would 
 not, for a moment, accept their authority 
 as a mere church law, of human cngin, 
 but I do accept these chnrch laws as 
 evidence that, in the opinion of these 
 great and learned men, such marriages 
 are forbidden by the law of God. Then 
 take the Presbyterian Church — strong 
 in numbei-s and influence, in piety and 
 talent — and we find in the " Confession 
 of Faith," their authorized standard of 
 church law, they have it laid down, 
 among the rules drawn from the Scrip- 
 tures, that " A man may not marry 
 any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood 
 than he may of his own.** I would not 
 adhere to that view merely because given 
 as the rule of a church. I am too inde- 
 pendent, and too free to be bound down 
 
 by doctrines, the mere commandments of 
 men, but I do consider that, when the 
 opinion of those wise and good men, who 
 have carefully and prayerfully studied 
 the Scriptures, is, that the law of God 
 prohibits this kind of marriage, it should 
 have great weight with us. I say that 
 these three great churches, by their stan- 
 dards, have, for centuries, upheld it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— Not the 
 Catholic one. 
 
 Hon. Mr. VIDAL— 1 take these 
 three churches hy their accredited stan- 
 dards, and I challenge any man to say 
 that thoy do not disapprove of such 
 marriages. I think, without going into 
 arguments that are not fit for the floor of 
 this House — for the discussion on the 
 Scriptures is better fitted for a forum of 
 a different nature — these churches all 
 bear testimony to the fact that, 
 in their opinion, the law of God 
 requires that there should be a 
 bar to this kind of marriage. Is all 
 that testimony valueless 1 Are we to 
 say that there can be no difference of 
 opinion, or are we to be like the hon. 
 getitleman from Belleville, who seemed 
 to think that his ipse dixit was to sweep 
 all these bars to the winds 1 This being 
 the testimony of such a large number of 
 persons who are so well-fitted to form a 
 judgment, we should hesitate before 
 venturing to say that they are entirely 
 wrong, and I think it is a wise thing to 
 give an opportunity, which I think will 
 be taken advantage of, to have this sub- 
 ject thoroughly discussed by the churches 
 and the people, and some decision 
 arrived at, that may be a guide and 
 assistance to Parliament at its next 
 session. 
 
 Hon. Mr. BOYD —It is with some 
 reluctance that I venture to offer a re- 
 mark on this question, the more so be- 
 cause, while very grave differences of 
 opinion exist between good men of both 
 sides, whose judgment I respect, to me 
 it seems so clear, and the interests in- 
 volved in the early and just settle- 
 ment of it so great, that I deem it 
 my duty to join those who may press for 
 an immediate decision, and that in favor 
 of the Bill which is now before this 
 hon. House. Tt has been said by my 
 hon. friends the members from Amherst, 
 Toronto and Fredericton, that the people 
 
33 
 
 liavo not asked for it ; tlmt few petitions 
 liuvo been sent up for, and many against 
 it ; but tins is a question which does not 
 tiilco hold of tlie public mind ; because it 
 is not one which touches the country's 
 pride or its purse, it is passed over 
 v/itl; the remark : " A mere questio.x of 
 family relations, and not likely to affect 
 me or mine," say too many. But it has 
 boeu discussed very widely in the Old 
 Country, Australia and the United States. 
 In. the latter it has been decided favorably, 
 aiic' in Britain, the House of Commons, 
 aft(!r years of discussion, passed it by a 
 large majority. It is yearly gi-owing in 
 favor of the House of Lords, and it must 
 s.icceed, for in all these discussions, so far 
 as I have seen— and 1 have followed 
 them with some degree of interest— I 
 have not met one argument lo convince 
 me that it was wrong, for neither from 
 pulpit, platform or press have I heard or 
 seen any reason that can weigh against 
 those wliich have been adduced in favor 
 of the principle of this Bill. The main 
 appeal has beeri to the Soriptui-as. Here, 
 one party rests their case, and they have 
 so far been singularly unfortuiiatn. 
 They involved the question in such a 
 labyrinth of difficulties that in many cases 
 they were forced to leave this ground and 
 seek that on which we stand when 
 discussing the ordinary affairs of life and 
 duty, of which matrimnny is one. Even 
 ♦^'ardinal Wiseman, -ts has been quoted 
 by the hon. raeinber from York, is in 
 favor of t))'^' Bill, for the poor, as 
 
 necessary i 
 productiveonl' 
 it is right in liis . 
 ed by the wealti 
 
 ''e, and will be 
 ".rthem,th«."ofore, 
 ' u;ay be obtain- 
 a consideration. 
 
 Standing u[)on this g.ound, I have put 
 the case to my own judgment in every 
 conceivable shape. I can see nothing in it 
 but what is purely sentimental. Even 
 this has its weight, and we are bound to 
 resjiect it; but there is sentiment also 
 on the other side, and more than senti- 
 ment, there are realities which have come 
 home to many a household; and men 
 and women, pure as ever lived, have 
 been branded with disgrace, and made to 
 feel the humiliating mark placed upon 
 them until tlioii- death. And why? 
 Becaiisa certain prejudices have been 
 framed into a law. Great names have 
 been quoted in defence of certain views. 
 Men in aulhovity desired to pursue 
 
 cours(?, and tliis was mado 
 
 a certain 
 
 easy to them by those whoso policy 
 it was to please, but as in political mat- 
 tens, so in si)iritual, or what is called 
 spiritual, it is not always safe to bo led 
 by great names, as even the best of men 
 have at times been, unwittingly, the vic- 
 tims of prejudice. They desire to believe 
 a certain thing ; they frame it into a 
 dogma, and, instead of going to the law 
 and the testimony for the Truth, they, out 
 of their own desires, frame a policy — they 
 go to, and frame arguments from it, in 
 defence of this policy, and thus even good 
 men have ))een led astray ; and the old 
 linens of Burns have been in order in their 
 case : — 
 
 " Some books are lius frae end to end, 
 And some great lies were never penned. 
 E'en Ministers they liae been kenned 
 
 In holy rapture ; 
 A roiisin' wliid at times to vend 
 
 And nail't wi scripture ! " 
 
 Confounding the Moral with the Cere- 
 monial—that which is for all time, with 
 that which was merely for a dispensation 
 which passed away some 1,800 years 
 ago — men have framed a ])lea from the 
 Old Testam^Mit to sustain their opposition 
 to this Bill ; but it goes too far. 'J'hey 
 say it ni'-ots theii- case ; let us read it : 
 "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her 
 sister, to vex her besides the other in 
 her (the wife's) lifetime." We may not 
 marry our wife's sister while she lives — 
 that is all ; they forget that we may, by 
 a parity of reasoning, when she dies ; 
 and not only so, but while prohibited 
 from vexing our wife, by wedding her 
 sister while she lives, we are at perfect 
 liberty, according to this law, to wed her 
 after the death of the wife, and, from the 
 example of the good men of that day, to 
 wed her and any other man's wife's 
 sister also, and there is no restriction on 
 the number that might be thus wed ; so 
 that if this law is of any force, we must 
 take it with all that it commanded, and 
 all that it permitted. Under it hon. 
 gentlemen might establish Harems in this 
 country — they might introduce the abom- 
 inations of polygamy, now happily con- 
 fined to Utah and a few other places not 
 recognised in Christian circles. The 
 same law to which appeal is had against 
 this Bill, if we take it in all its fulness, 
 would regulate our appetites in every 
 direction ; our domestic economies ; what 
 we should eat, drink and avoid : how we 
 3 
 
34 
 
 should buur otuHolves on tlio iSiilibuUi, 
 with other purely local and ceremonial 
 enactments, adapted to a barbarous, 
 untutored people in those early ages — a 
 people who treate<l woman as inferior, 
 placing upon her heavy bui'dons, and 
 degrading ber, in almost every position 
 in life. Even this law, to which appeal 
 is had, ordered that, on the birth of a 
 female child, the purification attendant 
 should be double that of a male. These 
 laws are attempted to 'e set beside those 
 which are for all time, and against laws 
 which commend themselves to our better 
 nature, and which will last when those of 
 more ceremonialism shall have for ever 
 passed away. If marriage were aught 
 else but a civil contract between man 
 and woman, which I hold it is, we might 
 be inclined to yield our judgment to 
 spiritual courts, and to the decrees of 
 spiritual teachers. It is a subject which 
 belongs to the State ; to be regulated only 
 by the State, and Parliament, therefore, 
 is the proper place to deal with it. We 
 ought not to give up our powers to another 
 court ; we cannot guard these too care- 
 fully, or uphold them with > too much 
 jealousy. But even in spiritual circles, 
 opinions widely differ. My hon. friend 
 from Montreal will be met by my hon. 
 friend from Toronto, each with a list of 
 great names against the opinions of the 
 other. One of the most distinguished 
 clergymen in the Wesloyan Church had 
 to leave England and come to this coun- 
 try, and remain here for a Jengt.h of time, 
 to marry his deceased wife's sister, and 
 to avoid the annoyances consequent upon 
 it. I know a case of one of the most 
 pure and amiable ladies in the Dominion, 
 a model wife, a good mother to her 
 sister's childi-en, and yet her family have 
 discarded her, and,almost broken hearted, 
 she is no longer recognized by them. My 
 hon. friend from Sarnia has challenged 
 us to namo one case where parties had 
 to leave this countiy to efioct such a 
 marriage. I can name two such cases 
 where I had myjelf to act as the guide 
 from St. John to Eastport, on missions 
 of this kind. I might multiply such 
 cases, but this one, will, I doubt not, 
 saggest many to hon. Senators, who have 
 probably had like knowledge, and why 
 should we lend our sanction to a continu- 
 ance of this injustice ? Why cause these 
 Ijeart burnings and recriminations, \yho>'e 
 
 tliero ought to be oidy lo. o aiul har- 
 mony] Are we looking for more light? 
 Is Parliament unable to form an opinion ( 
 What are Wf, to gain by poatpononient '? 
 And must we in this stage of the world's 
 progress, wait upon spiritual courts, 
 while they pass their j-ulgnient 
 upon matters purely secular? Make 
 laws, if you ])loaso, against the mar- 
 riage of certain degrees of blood reh'tion- 
 ship, and sea that they are cairied out in 
 the interests of future generations. Make 
 a law, as in Sparta, compelling every 
 man of the age of 25 to marry, or pay a 
 tax to the State — and I trust that this 
 law will include my hon. friend from 
 Halifax, who says there are many women 
 in the world, but yet has not taken one 
 to himself, as I hope he will ere another 
 session of this House — but, in franiiii<j 
 these marriage enactments, omit all limits 
 where the laws of nature or of scripture 
 have set no limits. Let a man marry 
 whomsoever he loves and is loved by, 
 yea, even to his own mother-in-law, if he 
 has the courage, and should so desire. 
 At the ju'esent time those desiring mar- 
 riage with their eister in-law can step 
 across the border line, and the twain 
 be made one flesh. Let the same privilege 
 be accorded here, and thus remove a 
 barrier which is useless, indefensible, and, 
 I believe, wholly evil. Some of the op- 
 ponents of this measure assume to be the 
 sole defenders of woman's purity, dignity, 
 rights and privileges. I am quite willing 
 to leave with woman the custody of her 
 own dignity and purity, her rights and 
 privileges ; to leave her to be the judge 
 of these hei-self, in this matter of mar- 
 riage. I would say to those who are un- 
 fairly interfering with these : " hands 
 off," and, if not, there will always be 
 found those, who, like Mai-y Frances 
 Cobb, Maria S. Kye and others, who can 
 defend themselves against the stronger 
 sex, even though led on by Right rev. 
 bishops, and give a good account of them- 
 selves, even against a whole General 
 Assemby of Divines. Let us then, 
 leave these questions to the men and 
 woratn interested or to be interested. 
 If a man or woman desire to marry, 
 let him or her do so. and let us not use 
 our power to force either party. Differ- 
 ences of opinion and taste always have, 
 and will exist ; let chese continue with- 
 out obstruction frpm us. The old minis- 
 
 T 
 
80 
 
 tcr, (liscussing tliis puint, saul : " It was 
 well there were Huch cUtlbionceH of opin- 
 ion, for, if everyone had been of my 
 opinion, thuy wouhl all have wanted my 
 wife," wliilo his deacon replied, that " if 
 everyone had been of his opinion, no one 
 would have wanted her." These differ- 
 ences of opinion are wise and natural. 
 Let us have Free Trade i.i these things, 
 coupled with just Protection to the weaker. 
 Let us not interfere where our interfer- 
 ence will be evil, or we may find cur- 
 selves tri])ped uf* at every step. The trans- 
 gression of Eve scenis to be ever before the 
 minds of certain high dignitaries in all 
 ages, and for this alleged sin of our dear 
 old inquisitive grandmother, they would 
 put her daughters into leading-strings 
 tor evermore, and say what they should 
 do, or not do, in matters in which they 
 have no concern. A later disi)ensation 
 has elevated woman to her proper posi- 
 tion. It is only under the benign influ- 
 ence of Christianity that woman is ac- 
 corded her true place. Here she is no 
 longer in the same degree as formerly — 
 the slave of man's wants and of his pas- 
 sions. She is now the equal in, and the 
 heljjer of, his home ; often his guide, 
 always his best counsellor in times of 
 difficulty ; his stay in trouble, as T know. 
 1 n that great trial which came upon so 
 many of us in our burning city, when 
 men's hearts failed them tor feai', woman 
 only was equal to the emergency, and 
 bore us up with her strong faith and 
 loving sympathy. Whenever a man 
 is drawn toward such an one, and she 
 reciprocates his love, let not mere senti- 
 ment frame a law to prevent tln^ir union, 
 for " whoso findeth a wife findt >.k a good 
 thing." There are plenty of ivomen in 
 the world, but a wife is not so easily to 
 be had. This principle of love, we can 
 talk about it, but who can estimate its 
 strength, its influence for good, when 
 rightly exercised ; its influence for evil, 
 when improperly obstructed 1 George 
 Stephenson, once asked by a lady. What 
 is the most powerful force in all nature 1 
 replied : " Madam, it is the eye of a wo- 
 man for the man she loves. If he go to 
 the uttermost ends of the earth, that eye 
 will bring him back. There is no other 
 force in all nature that will do that." 
 No one may stand between a woman 
 and the man she loves. " Neither life 
 nor death ; things present or to come." 
 
 Nothing more inoxpHoalile, wonderful, 
 beautiful than this love exists, a grand 
 example of which we have in the charac- 
 ter of Evadne, as drawn by Shiel, 
 portrayed by one of the most accom- 
 plished cf her sex, and witnessed by hun- 
 dreds in Ottawa last evening — an example 
 which ought to melt tho most obdurate 
 woman-hater or woman-enslaver in Par- 
 liament. And where such devotion ex- 
 ists, and it only does exist when allied 
 with purity and truth ; and where no 
 violation of God's law can be shewn in 
 jtermitti'ng it to declare itself, then, hon. 
 gentlemen, I believe we would be unjust 
 to our kith and kin, untrue to our own 
 nature, and unfair to those who have 
 .'iitored into the bonds of matrimony, or 
 who desire thus to do, under the relation- 
 ship contemplated by the framers of this 
 Bill, if we did not at once ordain a law 
 which has only the oi)position of more 
 sentiment, and against which there has not 
 been advanced one argument that I have 
 heard, that can stand the test of reason 
 or the light of Scripture. For these 
 reasons, then, I shall vote for this Bill. 
 I do trust that this House will shesv 
 itself abreast of public sentiment by sus- 
 taining it heartily ; and for myself, I am 
 glad to vote for a Bill that has been 
 introduced by one whom, for the last 
 thirty years, I have known for his good 
 works, and whom, with so many who 
 know him throughout this Dominion, I 
 am delighted to honor and respect. 
 
 Hon. Mr. HAYTHORNE— I desire 
 to olTer a very few remarks in explana- 
 tion of the course that I intend to pur- 
 sue on this occasion. I intend to sup- 
 port the amendment that has been 
 moved by the hon. Senator from Am- 
 herst. One hon. gentleman says that 
 the Christian world has had this ques- 
 tion before them for 1880 years, and 
 surely the Senate did not want another 
 year after all that time to make up their 
 minds. I shall answer that by saying 
 that it is not to make up my own mind, 
 but to permit those I repi-esent to express 
 their opinion at another meeting of Par- 
 liament upon a measure which they cer- 
 tainly did not contamplate would be 
 submitted in the Legislature this session. 
 It is not because I hesitate in my own 
 opinion upon this Bill, but because this 
 question was not before the people of 
 tho Pi'ovinco that I represent when I 
 
86 
 
 iast wiiH faoo to fiico with tli«in ; niul 
 they hiivo tluH further (l)Hii<lviintag(s that 
 thtdr p'()grai)hical position niiidois it 
 iiioro dilHcult to conimunicati' witli tht'iii 
 than witli other yavtM of tho Dotniiiion. 
 Tt in |>()HHil)ln that, HnnuaiincH, ovon 
 British (Jolunihia may Im more eaHily 
 cominuniiatotl with in winter than 
 Fiincfi Edward lahind. Looking at all 
 theHO tliingH, and hoiiig, as I am, aware 
 of tho fact that many men connected 
 with my Province, for whoso opinion I 
 have tho very highest respect, are opposed 
 to the marriages legalized hy tho Bill now 
 before tho House, I tliink it my duty to 
 support tho a menchnent. 1 may say that 
 the views which I untortaiu with regard 
 to the Bill itself aro very much in con- 
 formity with tliose expressed hero yes- 
 teiday and repeated to-day by the hon. 
 Senator from llichmond. I am in favor 
 of that portion of tho Bill which poitnits 
 marriage with a deceased wife's sister, 
 but I am not in favor of tl> .t portion of 
 it which permits marriage with the widow 
 of a deceased brother. Under tliose cir- 
 cumstances, oven if I were aware that the 
 opinions of the |)eo))lo of my Province 
 were in favor of the Bill, I could not 
 vote for it in its present shape. It is, 
 therefore, the more incumi)ent on me to 
 vote for delay. 1 will, with tho permis- 
 sion of tlie House, touch upon a few 
 points that have been alluded to in this 
 debate. In any remarks that have fallen 
 from the speakers who have preceded 
 me, with the exception of the hon. Sena- 
 tor who has just resumed Jiis S'jat, no 
 allusion was made to special cases of 
 hardship, and I think that the House 
 can readily understand the reason. No 
 person can wish to have paraded before 
 the public his own case or the cases of 
 friends, and, therefore, the ditHcidties 
 of those who advocate tlie passage of this 
 Bill are increased. I look upon this mea- 
 sure as the reu) val of a disability. Nov/, 
 in my three-score and some more year.?, 
 I have seen several disabilities removed, 
 and I remembei that, previous to their 
 removal, terrible consequences were con- 
 templated. I remember tho sad antici- 
 pations that were indulged in when the 
 disabilities of Catholics were removed ; 
 but no such evils occurred. Then, 
 again, there was another measure which 
 occupied the attention of the Imperial 
 Parliament session after session, which 
 
 was rojectod over and over again, but 
 which, hnally, was paHSiul — I allude to 
 tho removal' of tho disabilities which 
 prcve.itod dews from sitting iiv Paclia- 
 mcnt. 'Ihat was a meaauro which was 
 v(>ry nnpoijular, not only in Parlianunit, 
 but throughout tho country. The dis- 
 aliilitics were removed, and how many 
 Jmws do you find roturnod to Parlia- 
 ment in tho last election 1 It is not 
 hard to trace who is, and who is not, a 
 Jew, for, along with their religious and 
 national peculiarities, they preserve 
 tlieir family names ; and anyone who 
 r.ns his eye over tho list of returned 
 members, can see that, probably, not over 
 half a-dozen Jews will take seats in the 
 newly-elected Parliament. Now, as to 
 tho religious points of this qvicstion. 
 which have been so ably discussed, I 
 may say that I have given them careful 
 consideration, and I have come to tho 
 conclusion that, with regard to the m ir- 
 riago of a man with his deceased 
 wife's sister, there is no scriptural objec- 
 tion. I think we may very safely ac- 
 cept the opinions of a dignitary of tho 
 Iloman Catholic Church on that ques- 
 tion, so far as Boman Catholics are con- 
 cerned. We have the opinions of Car- 
 dinal Wiseman, as alluded to by tho 
 hon. Senator from Alma (Mr. Penny), 
 and they are very emphatic in favor of 
 the removal of 'his disability. In tho 
 Ei)iscopal Church we have the oi)inions 
 of Archbishop Whately, also emphati- 
 cally expressed in favor of the removal 
 of such disabilities ; and when 1 find two 
 men, holding such an elevated position 
 as those two ecclesiastics, I cannot hesi- 
 tate to accept their opinion as conclusive 
 upon this point. The hon. Senator from 
 Fredericton (Mr. Odell) alluded to a nu- 
 merous meeting of clergy and others in 
 London, England. While I am willing 
 to attacli as much importance to a meet- 
 ing of that sort as it is worth, it must be 
 considered that it was not held in our 
 own country or amongst our own imme- 
 diate countrymen. What is far more to 
 the purpose, and should weigh more 
 with us, is the fact that a meeting of the 
 Ministerial Association was lately held 
 in a city much nearer to us than Lon- 
 don — in Montreal — for whose opin"ons 
 wo ought to have greater respect. It was 
 called for the purpose of discuss- 
 ing this question, and, though not 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
37 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 T> 
 
 voi-y nuinci'ouNly uttoiuloil, I liinl tluit 
 tlinro woro, aiiioiifj those pi't-Hoiit, hIx 
 iiiiiiiHtors of diiroroiiL poiHUiiHiouH, all of 
 whom exi)ro.s.sod tho opinion thiifc tiiero 
 was no Hcriptural inhihiticn iisjiiinst Hiu;h 
 marriagi'H, and, f'.irthor, th it thoy a|» 
 pi-ovod of tlii« lUU. That was tho 
 unaninious oitinion of tlio mooting. Ho 
 iiHinh for Protostant opinion on tho 
 Hiihject. Now, I think, \\[)on a (pioation 
 of this Boit, JowIhIi opinion is worth 
 Honiothing. I think wo should iiKiiiirc 
 what has boon tho j)mctico among tho 
 •Tows with resi)oct to nianingo with a 
 doceasocl wifo's sistor. And hero, "gain, 
 I iiavc a competent authority. Whether 
 he is a native of British North America 
 or not, I cannot say, but I know that 
 Dr. De Sola occupies a very important 
 position in one of our leading educa- 
 tional establishmtMits, as Professor of 
 Hebrew, at McGill University : — 
 
 " Ah ruKfti'dn Jowiuli auUioritnlivo opinion, 
 tiiis uuquo8ti()nal)ly 1ms always Ijoeu in favor 
 of Hucli marriages, liecnuso tho syniigogiiu 
 (tlio eccJesia doi'"n>i nf Judaism) has always 
 rugardud thum as in iiccordanco witli tlic will 
 ot God, and as insUtuted in tho law wiiich 
 ho commanded his servant Moses. Tho pro- 
 l)rlety of such marriages has never been 
 questioned by Jewish teachers, ancient or 
 modern. . » « • • As regards 
 marriage with a deceased wife's sister, this 
 has always been permitted by tho Jewish 
 Church, and practised by the Jewish people. 
 The passage in Leviticus XVIII, 18, sometimes 
 appealed to as prohibiting such marriages, 
 according to received Jewish interpretation, 
 and also in accordance with strict grammatical 
 analysis, should road thus : — " 
 
 I will not trouble this hon. House by 
 again quoting this verse, which has 
 been done once or twice already this 
 evening. I will only say that Dr. Do 
 Sola's translation is substantially the 
 same as tho English version. Here 
 is tho opinion of a learned Hebrew 
 professor of our day, telling us eni|iha- 
 tically that the Jews have always re- 
 garded such nmrriages as in accordance 
 with the law of God. With tho opinion 
 of the.se high authorities in favor of the 
 legality of such marriages, T, for one, 
 can have no difficulty in forming an 
 opinion upon that point. Then, iny hon. 
 friend opposite (Mr. Macfarlane), whose 
 rspecch I very nuieu admired, and wlios 
 
 answered my hon. friend (Mr. Odell), 
 who thought that the Hill had Imhui more 
 froijuently rejected than passed by tho 
 Hritish House of Coinn\ons. One fjict 
 has escapoil tho observation of both hon. 
 gentlemen ; it is that, although a mca- 
 suie may have been rejected twenty 
 times, it no(! Is only to b;; carried once, 
 and, when it has been carried so often in 
 tho Houso of ( onimons, and l>y such 
 largct majorities, indicating a very 
 general consensus of opinion in its favor 
 in Great ]iritain, it does setsm a great 
 stretch of authority on tho part of the 
 House of Lords to rtyoct it so often as 
 tliev liave. I quite agree that 
 this House is a sort of reflection 
 of tho House of Lords, and shoulU 
 occupy in tho Canadian Parliament 
 a ]iosition somewhat simihir to 
 that of tlie Upper House in England, 
 but I, for one, slioidd not like to take 
 tho resi)onsibility on my own shoulders, 
 of rejecting a bill which passed tho other 
 House seven times, by majorities some- 
 times approaching one hundred. Know- 
 ing that the Senate is weary of this 
 debate, I shall content myself with 
 sinqdy observing that I intend to sup- 
 port the amendment of tho hon. member 
 from Amherst ; but, in doing so, I have 
 found it necessary to explain my views 
 very chuirly, because I do not wish to 
 subject myself to any misinterpretation 
 on this point. I do not wish it to bo 
 said here, or anywhere else, that I siq)- 
 ported the resolution with tho view to 
 seeing how the land lies in my own 
 Provinc(\ I have expressed myself with 
 sufficient clearness to render such an 
 imputation perfectly groundless. 
 
 Hon. Mr. TRUDEL— I should not 
 have taken part in this debate if allusion 
 had not been made repeatedly to a 
 supi)osed necessity for this Bill in the 
 Province of Quebec, and if Catholic 
 doctrine had not been invoked in its 
 favor. I think that the vote to be 
 taken to-night will shew that we, in 
 that Province, do not seek for such 
 legislation. I have strong objections, 
 some of which I shall state, to this Bill. 
 At this lato hour, and at this advanced 
 iod of the session, and with the 
 
 sentiments I generally concurred in, re- 
 ferred to the fact that bills similar to this 
 liad passed the British House of Com- 
 mons seven times. In saying so ho 
 
 per 
 
 numerous memorials that have been pre- 
 sented in this Chamber on tho subject, 
 lengthened argument would be useless. 
 I mav refer, however, to the opinions of 
 
38 
 
 do noi belong 
 
 some lion, gentlemen who 
 
 to the same church that I do, and who 
 
 have contended that the Roman Catholic 
 Church permitb such marriages. Those 
 
 , gentlemen are right in one sense, but 
 rrong in another. The rule of the 
 church is this : it does not recognize the 
 power of civil governments to legislate 
 upon the marriage tie, so that any legis- 
 lation which deals with the validity of 
 the mau'iage tie is, in my opinion, con- 
 trary to the rule of our church. That is 
 one of the objections that I have to this 
 Bill. Another objection is, that the law 
 of the church prohibits such marriages, 
 reserving the power, under certain cii-- 
 cumstauces, some of which have been 
 referred to in this debate, to grant dis- 
 pensations. The law is against such 
 marriages, but, in exceptional cases, they 
 are allowed, and it is in this sense 
 only that it may be said that such mar- 
 riages are allowed. But this Bill, without 
 making any exception, legalizes these 
 marriages. It affirms a principle which 
 is entirely oi)posed to the law of the 
 church. While the church enacts, as the 
 general law, that " the marriage of a man 
 with the oister of his deceased wife, etc., 
 is prohibited," this Bill lays down a con- 
 tradictory proposition as the general rule, 
 
 \ 
 
 viz. : " Alarriage between a man and 
 the sister of his deceased wife, or the 
 widow of his deceased brother, shall be 
 legal." Is it not clear that it is contra- 
 dictory to the law of the church and of 
 its doctrines 1 That is my second ob- 
 jection to the Bill. I question very 
 much the propriety of admitting 
 such a general rule — a rule which, 
 I admit, will have the effect 
 of affording relief to some parties, 
 but is wrong in principle. VVe are all 
 Christians, and I think it will be univer- 
 sally admitted that such marriages are 
 not favorably regarded, though they may 
 be allowed, by any religious denomina- 
 tion. They are not of such a character 
 that th-)y should be put on the same gen- 
 oral footing as ordinary marriages. 
 Tlierefore, to pass this Bill would be to 
 lay down a principle which, as a general 
 nile, is reprobated, I believe, by most of 
 the Christian denominations of _ this 
 country, and is opposed to the religious 
 sentiment of the people. An hon. gen- 
 tleman from Ontario remarked, to-day, 
 that, while ho has the greatest respect 
 
 for the opiuions of the different churches, 
 still he prefers his own convictions. 
 This hon. gentleman should consider, 
 whatever his individual opinion may be, 
 that marriage is, in this country, ad- 
 mitted by all creeds to be a religious act, 
 and, consequently, a matter which pro- 
 perly belongs to the different churches ; . 
 and I hope that the day is far distant / 
 when it will be considered a civil matter,/ 
 The best proof of that is the fact that, 
 in all the religious denominations, the 
 ceremony of marriage is performed 
 by a clergyman. There is no marriage 
 performed' by civil officers, and, fortu- 
 nately, civil marriage is not permitted in 
 this country. To us Catholics, marriage 
 is a sacrament, is of Divine institution, 
 and is exclusively under the control of 
 the church, I do not see how the 
 opinions of the different churches on 
 I this question can be set aside. The Bill 
 is also objectionable from a social point 
 of view, but, at this late hour, I shall not 
 enter into an argument on that branch 
 of the subject. One hon. gentleman re- 
 marked this evening that he had heard 
 very few arguments against the Bill ; the 
 reason was explained, even at the begin- 
 ning of the debate— the late period of the 
 session. If we had time, I should be 
 perfectly ready to meet the advocates of 
 the measure, and shew that there are 
 very strong arguments against it. Is 
 not the fact that Christianity, during 
 eighteen centuries, has been opposed to 
 these marriages, and that they have been 
 allowed only under exceptional circum- 
 stances, sufficient to shew that they are 
 objectionable? It may be contended 
 that we live in an age of great advance- 
 ment, but it must be remembered that 
 the ruk'S of morality are always the 
 same and do not admit of progress. 
 Unfortunately, instead of improving, in 
 our age the sense of morality is dimin- 
 ishing, so that the tendency of the age 
 cannot be used as an argument in favor 
 of this measure. We are asked " why do 
 you not vote directly against the Bill if 
 you are opposed to it 1 Why do you 
 ask for a year's delay T' My reason is, 
 that I consider some legislation neces- 
 sary to meet particular eases, although I 
 am opposed to establishing a geneial 
 rule, and, therefore, I wish to have a 
 
 _,_. „ delavin order that such legisla- 
 tion may be introduced. What we want 
 
 year s 
 
39 
 
 r.l 
 
 . I*^ 
 
 c wiint 
 
 is legislation giving sanction to the 
 rules of the chnrcli, that is, recognising 
 the marriages which they have allowed, 
 and which would enact for instance : 
 " That such marriages between a man 
 and his deceased wife's sister that have 
 been contracted according to the regula- 
 tions of their church, are recognized as 
 valid." Special allusion has been made to 
 the Province of Quebec, with reference to 
 the civil status of children, issue from 
 such marriages. The social position of 
 parties in that Province, who have con- 
 tracted such marriages, is not affected by 
 any feeling in the community, if dispen- 
 sations have been granted by the church. 
 The only difficulty is that their children 
 cannot inherit their property : but this 
 fact is no reason for adopting a general 
 ))rinciple which is wrong. There is a 
 sim])le remedy for the difficulty ; these 
 parties can make their wills in favor of 
 their children. I shall, therefore, vote 
 for the amendment, first, because I con- 
 sider that the Bill establislies a wrong 
 ]>rinciple, and better legislation may be 
 framed ; and, second, that there is no 
 harm in postponing the matter for 
 another year. 
 
 Hon. Mr. SMITH— I did not intend 
 to say anything on the Bill before tlie 
 House, but, as so many hon. gentlemen 
 have expressed their views on this sub- 
 ject, I think I should say a few words to 
 identify myself with the mensure before 
 the amendment is put. I find that, since 
 the beginning of the Christian era, mar- 
 riage with a deceased wife's sister has 
 been allowed. It is against the law of 
 the land, but it cannot be said 
 tliat it is against the law of 
 God. If it was, the church to which 
 I belong would never have granted 
 dispensations for such marriages. The 
 law of God lias, therefore, not been 
 broken, but the Jaw of the land has been 
 violated, and it is our duty to place upon 
 our statute books a law which will re- 
 lieve their offspring from the unmerited 
 taint of illegitimacy. In voting against 
 the amendment and for the Bill, I con- 
 sider that i shall be doing my duty to my 
 church, my God and my fellow-men. No 
 argument that has been advanced here 
 by Roman (Jatliolic members can shake, 
 in the slightest degree, my convictions 
 on this subject. I havo the high author- 
 ity of tlie groivt Cardinal \yis(>man iu 
 
 support of the course that I shall take, 
 and I shall vote to remove the disabili- 
 ties under which so many of our people 
 are suffering. 
 
 Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD— I did intend 
 to express my views on this measure, be- 
 cause I have a very decided opinion upon 
 it, but I shall not detain the House, at 
 this late hour, longer than to refer to the 
 statement made by the hon. Senator from 
 Sarnia (Mr. Vidal), in respect to the 
 opinions of the learned divines of the 
 Church of England, the Church of Rome 
 and the Presbyterian Church. I will 
 i-ead a few authorities upon that point 
 to shew the ho.^ member that he has 
 made a statement which, he will acknow- 
 ledge, went too far. 
 
 Hon. Mr. VIDAL— I spoke of the 
 standards of the churches, not of any- 
 body's opinions. 
 
 Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD— The House 
 will pardon me if I cite a few authorities. 
 I find in Hansard for 1855, Mr. Ball is 
 reported as saying : — 
 
 " Among those names (m support of such 
 marriages) were those of Archbishop Whately, 
 the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of St. 
 David's, the Bishop of Linc»ln, the late Bishop 
 of Landaff, and he might go on naming a long 
 list of illustrous divines and holy men who 
 had concurred in those views. Then, again, 
 among those who were revered by the great 
 body of the Dissenters, and wlio were favorable 
 to the adoption of a measure like the present, 
 the name of Dr. Chalmers stood pre-eminently 
 forward. • • • * Another name that he 
 would cite in its favor was that of Dr. Adam 
 Clarke, a man of profound learning, of im- 
 mense ecclesiastical research, and whose ad- 
 mirable commentaries upon the Holy Scrip- 
 tures had rendered his name celebrated 
 throughout the empire. Ho, too, was favor- 
 able to the abolition of the present restrictions ; 
 and he (Mr. Ball) would complete the list of 
 illustrous men, whose opinions were favorable 
 to a change of the law in this respect, by 
 adding that of a man who was held in vener- 
 ation by hundreds of thousands, nay, perhaps 
 millions of his fellow-countrymen— the great 
 Wesley, a man than whom no one led a purer 
 or more pious life; and also the name of 
 Professor Lee." 
 
 In 18G2, when a bill similar to this was 
 before the British House of Commons, 
 Mr. Buxton is reported as saying : 
 
 " Nor could he allow that it was a question of 
 mere expediency . It was a question of right 
 ami justice. In forbidding a man, when God 
 had not forbidden him to marry the woman he 
 loved — ill forbidding liim to give his children 
 a mother already devoted to them, instead of a 
 strange .Ktep-mother — they were as cruelly 
 
SSbH 
 
 40 
 
 wronging liini us if tlitiy wmtched away his 
 money or liis land . II u had a claim on thoir 
 justice to be allowed to do that, and they were 
 trespassing on his rights in debarring him. 
 If Scripture said nothing, pcojjle would be left 
 to form their own opinions. But when a line 
 had been precisely drawn between allowed 
 and disallowed marriages, surely those who 
 demanded to use the freedom which God had 
 given them were wronged if that freedom were 
 taken away upon the pretence of some fancied 
 awkwardness arising to imaginary people. 
 The case for the Bill seemed overwhelming if 
 they took the ground of expediency alone. 
 But the true, the decisive reason for support- 
 ing it was that the existing law was a trespass 
 on men's natural rights, and that it filched from 
 them the freedom reserved to them by the law 
 of God." 
 
 Mr. Monukton Miles, ia the same debate, 
 cited the following testimony of Dr, 
 McCaul, one of the best Hebrew scholars 
 of the clay ; at the same time, his 
 orthoeloxy cannot be disputed. Dr. Mc- 
 Caul says : 
 
 "I confess that, when I entered upon this 
 inquiry, I had no idea that the case of those 
 who wish a change in the presen marriage 
 law was so strong. I hsid thought that the 
 opinions of grave and learned students of the 
 Bible were more equally divided ; and that, as 
 authorities wore pretty evenly balanced, they 
 who had contracted such marriages must bear 
 the inconveniences arising from doubtful 
 interpretation. But I do not think so now. 
 Confirmed by the testimony of antiquity and 
 the judgment of ilio most considerable inter- 
 preters at the Refmination, and since the lie- 
 formation, I now believe there is no reason- 
 able room for doubt — that there is no verse in 
 the Bible of which the interpretation is more 
 sure than that of Leviticus xviii, 18; and I 
 think it a case of great hardship that they 
 should, by the civil law, be punished as trans- 
 gres.oors, whose marriage, according to the 
 divine law, is permitted and valid ; and harder 
 still that the children of such marriages 
 legitimate in the sight of the infallible Judge 
 should be visited with civil disabilities." 
 
 I have (juoted tlicso authorities to 
 shew the oi)inions of leading divines in 
 England upon the subject. 
 
 The House then divided upon the 
 amendment, which was adopted by the 
 
 following vote : — 
 
 Contents : 
 
 Hon. IMessrs. 
 
 Allan, Grant, 
 
 Archibald, (Juevremont, 
 
 Armand, >^ Haythorne, 
 
 Bellerose, y^ Kaulbach, 
 
 Bouchervillc, Ue, McClelan {Hopewell), 
 
 Bourinot, LcLelan (Londonderri/) 
 
 Bureau, Slacdonald, 
 
 Campbell, Sir Alex., Miller, 
 
 Chatters, Odell, 
 
 Chapais, ^^ Power, 
 
 Christie, Pozer, 
 
 Cormier, . Kyan, 
 
 Cornwall, .Sutherland, 
 
 Dickey, Trudel, - — 
 
 DiCkson, Vidal, 
 
 Dumouchel, Wark — 33. 
 Girard, 
 
 NoN-CoNTENTS 
 
 Hon. Messrs. 
 Lewin, 
 
 Aikins, 
 
 Baillaigoon, 
 
 Benson, 
 
 Botsford, 
 
 Boyd, 
 
 Cochrane, 
 
 Dever, 
 
 Fabre, 
 
 Ferguson, 
 
 Ferrier, 
 
 Flint, 
 
 Gibbs, 
 
 Hamilton {Tnkfrman) 
 
 Hamilton {Kinjuton), 
 
 Hope, 
 
 Leonard, 
 
 Tl" House ailjourued at 11.30 p.ni 
 
 McMaster, 
 
 Macfarlane, 
 
 Macphersou {Siicaher), 
 
 Jlontgomery, 
 
 Puquet, 
 
 Pelletier, 
 
 Penny, 
 
 Price, 
 
 Read, 
 
 Keesor, 
 
 Simpson, 
 
 Sjiiith, 
 
 Stevens, 
 
 Thibaudeau — :!I. 
 
 i 
 
 A