any one very dear to me do, but am I a final one; you may depend upon it it is going to oppose a bill from a mere feeling only the entering wedge and you will find of sentiment! No; other members may session after session other bills brought in have different views on this subject from by other individuals to extend the priviwhat I have, and I am not going to tram- leges here granted. And after this somel them. If the Bible is to be taken called disabilities will be frittered away literally, I hold that according to St. Paul, one at a time until at last you will come a bishop has no authority to marry more almost to promiscuous marriages and a than one wife; therefore I am not sur-total disregard, perhaps, for the laws enprised that the bishops should be opposed joined by Scripture. Something of that to this bill, as they cannot derive any bene- sort, I fear, is coming upon us and therefit from it. The bill must eventually pass fore it is that I deprecate entirely any this House, and why not let it pass now? interference with the marriage laws at all. It has passed the Lower House; it is the Under the existing laws we have lived law of France and Switzerland, and must eventually be the law of this country, and why should we stop the way; why should we not keep pace with the spirit of the age, and adopt this legislation.

very contentedly and happily together, and we have never heard of any strong public exhibition of feeling with regard to it. There have been no public meetings. There is no proof that the country at large requires this legislation. It is very HON. MR. ODELL--I have no doubt true that this law has been violated in a that the hon. mover of this Bill has given few instances, but these instances are few it his support because he is convinced and and I believe one may almost count them is perfectly sincere in the matter. But at in any district upon their fingers. What, the same time I must add, that in his I ask, has been the consequence? No opening speech I think he implied that he real public inconvenience has arisen either was still influenced by a great deal of social or moral and in fact there have sentiment towards those with whom he been no proscriptions, no penalties nor has been brought into closest association, anything of that sort attached to these and I do not wonder at it. I have no things, and I cannot see that there is any doubt that there is a strong feeling of ground for the Act that is now proposed. sentiment in his mind, but the hon. mem- But in the remarks which I am about ber who last addressed the House has to make with regard to it, I mean to avoid told us that we are not to legislate for altogether all reference to any theological sentiment at all. I believe there is quite question. I think we had that on a as much, if not more sentiment in this former occasion, when it was pretty well measure than anything else. I regret very sifted, and I shall be quite willing to much that the Bill has been introduced at leave the theological question to be disall. If there were a necessity for it I am cussed, if it is thought necessary, by my persuaded, in my mind, that a public hon. friend from Belleville (Mr. Flint) who measure like this, affecting as it does the expounded it to us last year. whole community throughout the Dominion, from the Atlantic on one side to the Pacific on the other, ought to have been a Government measure; and I believe HON. MR. ODELL- I must say the that when a Government undertakes a hon. member, when he produced the book measure of this sort they should bring to from his pocket last year, reminded me this House indisputable proof that it is very much of Mr. Bradlaugh the other one that is really required in the interest day when he produced the Bible from of the people at large, and not merely in his pocket to take his oath. the interest of a few individuals. Now hon. gentleman will not quite rank me hon. gentlemen, I deprecate altogether, with the animals. any interference on behalf of either an individual or a Government with these marriage laws. I think that it should be avoided except in most pressing circum- HON. MR. ODELL-I intend to base stances. We do not know what the my arguments upon the propriety of passresult of it may be. This measure is not ing such a law under existing circumstances,

HON. MR. FLINT-I am not going to cast my pearls that way this year.

I hope the

HON. MR. FLINT-I make no such allusion.

and I will call attention to the history of tain the sentiments of the people on the this measure. You are all aware, hon. question at the next session of Parliament." gentlemen, that in 1880 this Bill was intro- That was the opinion of the Senate when duced by a private member, influenced, this Bill came up in 1880. And here I as he himself admitted at that time, by would say that there was an opportunity sympathy for a woman who had violated for the Government to have taken charge the law. She had come to him and of that measure, and in the meantime to through her influence over him this have ascertained clearly and distinctly measure was introduced. Now, it does what the feelings of the country at large not appear to me that that is a proper way were, and whether there was really any for a grave and important question like necessity for it or not; but that was not this to come before Parliament. However, done. I think there was an opportunity previous to this there was no public ex- which might well have been improved, pression of feeling; there was not a peti- when the census was taken, to ascertain tion before either House, or any meeting, how many persons there were in the whole or any expression of sentiment whatever, Dominion who had violated this Act. that I am aware of, until the question was We could then have learned whether there started in this way by a private member was any real necessity for such a Bill at in the other branch of the Legislature. all; because I hold that we are not here In that, way this Bill was sprung upon us, to legislate for the relief of a few persons and Parliament was called upon, without who have violated the law against the any notice whatever, to consider the large mass of the community who have question. There was no opportunity rigorously obeyed it, and therefore I given to get up petitions against it, except should have liked to ascertain clearly the time that intervened between the what number of people would be affected introduction of the measure in the other by such a measure. House and its discussion in this branch of Parliament. Notwithstanding the fact that the time was so short, petitions were brought before your honors to the number of sixty-one, against the passage of the Bill. And what may I ask, was the number before us to pass it? Only four, and two of those four came from the same locality, and really might almost be looked upon as the same petition. That, I think, of itself would show to this House that there was no public exigency for the measure, and the Senate wisely, under the resolution which was moved by the hon. Senator from Amherst, said "No, we cannot pass such a measure under such circumstances." And therefore, though the majority was very small, we did very good service. I think it was an act of wisdom and prudence on the part of this House to defer the consideration of that Bill as it did. I will now read the reference to remind your honors why the consideration of the Bill was postponed. On the 27th April, 1880, the hon. Senator from Amherst moved

We

In the session of 1881 nothing was done: we never heard of this Bill or of any movement being made with regard to it. The consequence was that those who were opposed to the measure thought that the matter was dropped; they were lulled into security, and never took any trouble with regard to it. When the session of 1882 commenced, this Bill was introduced in the same manner. Under these circumstances I think it was the duty of those in charge of the Bill to take care to establish the fact that it was a necessity. But nothing of the sort has been done So far from this being the case we have nothing constitutional before us to that effect. hear from individuals that there is a feeling in certain districts in favor of the measure, or that individuals in certain places require relief; but we have nothing constitutional before us to show any necessity for the legislation asked for. On the contrary I contend we have the best possible proof that such legislation would be imprudent and hasty. The weight of public opinion, I think, is against the Bill. I am now going to appeal to facts, and I "That the said Bill shall not be now read shall quote from the votes and proceedthe second time, bu. that it be resolved that ings of the representatives of the people, it is inexpedient to proceed with this measure during the present session in order to afford and then refer to the petitions which have time to consider the various petitions to the been presented for and against this measSenate for and against the Bill, and to ascer- ure. In 1880, at the second reading of

the Bill in the House of Commons, there the number of signatures. They all appear were nineteen votes against the measure and 140 in favor of it—that is, about oneeighth of the whole House opposed to it and on one of the amendments the division came to sixty-seven to sixty, and that amendment the opponents of the Bill carried. Then, the last division which took place in the session of 1880 was 34 to 108, so that you see that there was onethird of the vote against the Bill. In 1882 upon the second reading we had thirty-four votes against the Bill and 171 for it that is, one-fifth against it, so that there has been an increase from one-eighth to one-fifth in the opposition to the Bill.

HON. MR. FERRIER-I think it is the other way.

HON. MR. ODELL-You have in the first place nineteen votes opposed to it in the House of Commons, and this session you have thirty-four votes opposed to it. I want to know if that is not a gain.

to be ladies, but some signed as Mrs. and some as Miss, and where there were initials you could not be sure. However, I counted the number of signatures, and found there were only 125. I do not charge the hon. mover of the Bill in the other branch of the Legislature with any intention to mis-state the case. No doubt it was a very long petition, and he imagined there were more signatures to the petition than there really were. When you come to find that instead of 300 there were only 125, I would like to know how many of these statements made by the supporters of this Bill can be relied on.

HON. MR. FLINT—It may be as bad on the other side.

HON. MR. ODELL-I am coming to that directly. What we have to look to is the evidence before us, and I want to call your attention to the petitions which have been presented to this House against the Bill. I have stated already that in 1880

HON. MR. SMITH-Instead of 140 there were sixty-one against the Bill and you have 170 in favor of it now.

HON. MR. ODELL-This year when the question came up on the six months hoist there were fifty-one against the Bill and 104 in favor of it showing another gain in the opposition to the Bill in the popular branch of Parliament.

I want now to call your attention to the petitions, and I think that is a most important point, because petitions are the only way in which we can constitutionally ascertain the feelings of the people. But before drawing your attention to the number of petitions presented to the Senate upon the subject, I will refer to the speech of the member who introduced the Bill in the other branch of the Legislature. In moving the second reading of the Bill respecting marriage with a deceased wife's sister, he said :

"After having seen, as we have to-day, a petition from about 300 ladies of Montreal, for the repeal of the prohibition of the marriage with a deceased wife's sister, we cannot postpone the passage of the Bill."

four in favor of it. I contend that a very short period has been allowed this year for getting up these petitions, because as I said before, the country was not prepared for the introduction of the Bill this session. It was supposed, as reference was made from one session over to the next session, that the Bill would probably have been introduced in 1881, but it was not, and therefore it was supposed that it was dropped. The hon. Senator (Mr. Ferrier) shakes his head, but I assure you that was the feeling in my part of the country at all events.

HON. MR. FERRIER-How many circulars were sent around to members during that year?

HON. MR. ODELL-I do not know.

HON. MR. FERRIER-I got a large number myself I know.

HON. MR. ODELL-During the recess?

HON. MR. FERRIER-Yes.

I was a little curious to see that petition and I applied to the proper officer at the other end of the building, but it was a long time before it could be found. At last I found it and took the trouble to count swer the question because I got no cir

HON. MR. ODELL-I cannot an

HON. MR. SMITH-What was the majority in favor of the Bill, in the other House, in 1880?

HON. MR. ODELL-Sixty-two.

HON. MR. SMITH-And what is the majority in favor of it this year?

HON. MR. FERRIER-Seventy-seven. HON. MR. SMITH-That is an increase of 15 in the majority this year.

culars myself. It has been suggested to the Bill. You have asked for public exme by an hon. gentleman near me that pressions to guide you and you have 3,369 probably these circulars were sent only to petitioners against the measure and only those in favor of the Bill and not to those thirty-seven in favor of it, and an increase who were opposed to it. This session in the opposition to the Bill in the popular there have been fifty-eight petitions pre- branch of Parliament. I would earnestly sented in this House against the Bill and ask from your honors a verdict in accordhow many signatures do you suppose there ance with the evidence which I have enwere to these petitions? I have taken the deavored to lay before you; and I trust trouble to count them and I find that the resolution which has been moved by there were 3,369, of which 1,237 were the Hon. Senator from DeLanaudière will females. The latter are underrated, for be adopted. this reason that in counting them I wished to be particular so as not to overstate the thing at all and I omitted those who merely had initials. Now it is stated there were 300 signatures attached to the petition presented in the other House and I have shown that there were only 125. If we take the number which I have stated as correct and deduct it from the number of female signatures attached to the petitions presented here you will find over 1,100 more praying that this Bill do not pass than you find in support of it. I can safely say that these numbers might have been increased largely-quadrupled, or even more if necessary. Not- HON. MR. OGILVIE-I will take up withstanding all that has been done on the very little of your time, indeed, hon. part of the advocates of this Bill, during gentlemen, and I certainly shall not folthe short time that has been allowed its low the line of argument which has been opponents, these fifty-eight petitions have adopted by some hon. members to-day. I been presented. Nothing could more do not think we should altogether vote clearly demonstrate the growing opposi- here upon what petitions may be sent in. tion to the Bill though it has been most Petitions, of course, may have their carefully drawn to avowedly catch votes. influence, and may show sometimes which It was openly stated by the hon. member way public feeling goes; but I know perin the other branch of Parliament, who intro- fectly well that on a great many occasions duced it that he had struck out the former petitions have very little to do, indeed, most objectionable sections. The hon. with public feeling. People will sign many Senator from Belleville has said that the a time with very little thought, and very figures may he incorrect on my side, but little care, I am sorry to say. I told a the petitions are on fyle and he can ex- gentleman who wanted me to sign a petiamine them for himself. With these facts, tion once in Montreal, "Why, I could which cannot be disputed, on our records, go out, and in an hour get a petition in response to the resolution moved by signed by fifty people to have you hanged." the hon. Senator from Amherst in 1880, I believe occasionally you could do such when he said the sentiments of the people absurd things. But since the hon. Senashould be ascertained, I ask how, with any tor for Rookwood (Mr. Odell) has spoken show of consistency, we can pass the Bill so much about the petitions presented to which is now before us? Whatever the Parliament, I have the very best and most feelings of hon. members may be and correct information that the petition which however much they may be influenced by was signed by the ladies of Montreal had sympathy for isolated cases of those who over 300 signatures. Then the hon. have violated the laws, in view of the facts gentleman did not refer to the petition which I have feebly endeavored to submit that was sent to the House of Commons and in justice to the petitioners, I hope this year, signed, if I recollect correctly, you will accede to their prayer and reject by about 1,200 clergymen. If any peti

tion is of value at all, there cannot cer- ligious superiors or instructors on this tainly be one of more importance than question. I exercise my own common that. I would not record my vote here sense on the subject; if I am wrong in for all the petitions that could possibly be my conclusions I must bear the disgrace sent in to this House, but would be in- of it; but if I am right I will act upon fluenced solely by what I conscientiously my convictions and nothing else. I feel believed to be right. I have come to my quite certain that if we could only give the own conclusions of what I should do: ladies a chance to vote upon they may be erroneous; I do not pretend this question, notwithstanding the to be infallible, but I have paid a good long petition which has been presented deal of attention to this question since here, you would find nine-tenths of them ever it was first brought up in the House in favor of the passage of this Bill. The of Commons in England, and I have seen hon. senator from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulmembers of the poorest, of course, and bach) says they are against it; but he did also of the wealthiest families in Montreal, not employ to-day the usually strong who went to the United States to get arguments used by him when he speaks married, and returned, and are residing in on other subjects. I think it would be a Montreal to-day. If they are living in great pity, after what has taken place in defiance of the law, certainly their social the House of Commons, if we should act relations do not find fault with them; cer- as obstructionists here to prevent the pastainly it does not alter their feelings sage of a bill which we know is wanted. towards them. I think, in this age of The hon. senator from Rookwood (Mr. electric telegraphs, railways and steam- Odell) has stated that there did not seem ships, it is quite possible that we may be to be any particular reason why this Bill able to improve even such matters as the should be brought forward at the present laws of marriage. The hon. Senator from time, and he said it was sprung upon him Woodstock has stated that many years ago suddenly—that he had not had time to a man could not marry the daughter of his see about it. It seems to me that two god-father. I do not think any of us years is a good while to think over it. It would like to have that law in force at the was introduced first in 1880, and passed present time. Many of us have seen the by a large majority in the House of Comtime when feeling ran very high between mons and it was defeated here by a very the different religious denominations. I small majority indeed. Since then two am not a very old man yet, but I remem- years have passed, and I certainly think ber well where I was brought up, in a that I am within the mark when I say totally French-Canadian country, where that the feeling is very much stronger the feeling ran so high between different to-day in favor of the Bill than it was then. religious denominations, that they would I know that the majority in the House of hardly associate socially with each other. Commons was larger this time than it was I am very happy to say that this has been before. wiped out almost completely, and I hope to live long enough to see the day when religion shall not interfere with a person's social relations in the slightest degree. That being the case I cannot see why we should not improve the marriage law, if this is an improvement; and I certainly should not like, as a memberof this House, that we should be called obstructionists here. There is no law that I am aware of against people marrying their cousins. I do not say by any means that such marriages are wrong; but, I think, if there is nothing against the inter-marriage of cousins, there certainly should not be anything against a man getting married to the sister of his deceased wife-I do not propose to quote the views of any of my re

HON. MR. POWER-Not at all.

HON. MR. OGILVIE-The majority was 62 in 1880; it is 77 now.

HON. MR. SMITH-The majority is 15 more this year.

HON. MR. OGILVIE-If that is the case we should at least concede that they know something of public feeling upon the subject. We know that the members of the House of Commons are somewhat particular about voting the way that the majority of their constituents feel, if they can possibly do so, and I think when they have a larger majority there it is the best.