The Sun. — London, England, 1851-02-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 25. The 1.01113 CIIANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. MARRIAGE AFFINITY BILL. Lord CAMPBELL presented petitions, numerously signed, from several Dissenting congregations against this Bill. Lord St. Germans, Lord Wharncliffe, and the Earl of Carlisle presented petitions from Doncaster and several other places in favour of the Bill. Lord OVERSTONE begged also to lay upon their Lordships' table a petition, numerously and most respect ably signed by inhabitants of the city of London. It was signed by the present Lord Mayor, the gentleman who was lately Lord Mayor, the Governor and Deputy- Governor of the Bank of England, by 59 of the principal persona connected with the Corporation, by the Chamberlain of the City, by 237 of the principal merchants of the City, 146 solicitors, 154 barristers, and other parties who were deeply interested in the subject of this Bill. He need hardly assure their Lordships that the persons from whom this petition emanated were men of the] highest intelligence and respectability— men who entertained the meat conscientious feel ings, who had the highest regard for public decency and morality, and who were especially careful not to attach their names to any document which was in any way calculated either to be injurious to their own welfare or that of their neighbours. Still less were they disposed to advocate anything that was con trary to doctrines contained in the sacred word of God. Oa these grounds he felt himself justified in offering the petition to the serious consideration of their Lordships, and in doing so he earnestly hoped their Lordships would, by their decision this night, remove that obstacle which, in his judgment, had been most unnecessarily and improperly raised, and which he believed neither the laws of God nor the well understood laws of society justified or rendered expedient. The Marquis of SALISBURY presented several pe- titions from the clergy against the Marriage Bill. Lord NELSON presented a considerable number of petitions to the same effect from clergy in Bridport, Shrewsbury, Liverpool, and other places. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented several petitions, as we understood, in favour of the Marriage Bill. The Earl of ST. GERMANS said, not long before the close of last session of Parliament, a Bill was brought up to the House of Lords from the other House of Parliament, to amend the Act relating to marriages, within certain degrees of affinity, which was passed in the sth and 6th year of William IV. Of that Bill be had reluctantly taken the charge; he said reluctantly, not because he had any doubt of the policy or propriety of the measure, but because he felt conscious of his own incompetence to deal adequately with the theological and legal questions which were involved in the measure. It was said that the measure was too important to be discussed at so advanced or so late a period of the ses sion; and it was then arranged it should be brought forward at the commencement of the present session. He had now to claim their Lordships' indulgence while he stated to them the arguments which he thought ought to induce them not to reject the present Bill. He might have commenced by arguing that the Mosaic law was not binding on those who had embraced the Christain dispensation. To prove this he would only cite the opinions of Jeremy Taylor, of the eminent Lord Chief Justice Vaughan, and of the Rev. Mr. Tyler, who had been examined before the commis. sion on this subject; but he was not disposed to insist upon that argument. He might also, with very many eminent Biblical scholars, have insisted that the same interpre tation of prohibition could not have been applied to man and woman. The 18th chapter of Leviticus contained sixteen degrees of prohibition, eight of consanguinity, and eight of affinity, and it was by a logical process from these prohibitions, which was called a parity of reasoning, that the prohibitions now enforced were drawn, as, for instance, from the prohibition against miming a brother's widow contained in that chapter, was drawn that against marrying a wife's sister; while, in fact, the converse of that proposition would in truth be against marrying a husband's brother. He would - ask their Lordships, whether, in a law which described with such singular minuteness all the different degrees of prohibition, any degree which had meant to be prohibited would not have been specially mentioned? Some attempt had been made to show that there were in the Scripthres to be found an absolute prohibition of a marriage with a decea'ed wife's sister; but he believed that the words of Scripture in the original language would be found to bear no such meaning. We had no right to exercise our fancy in wresting the plain words from their original meaning, and it would be found, according to the interpretation of the best scholars, that no such meaning could be attached to the words of Scripture. It had been held by Professor Michaelis that such mar riages were not. prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures. t had been indeed distinctly understood that according to the Mosaic law these marriages were admitted after the decease of the wife. He trusted that he had satis fied their:Lordships that there had been no prohibition of these marriages under the Mosaic dispensation. There certainly had been no ,prohibition of these mar riages either by our Saviour or by his apostles, and we, therefore, might assume that our Saviour did not con sider them unlawful. But it was said that they were prohibited by the canon law. It was true that the canon law declared that he who married two sisters could not become a clergyman. It did not appear, however, that the provisions of the canon law upon the subieet afTPetPd laymen. But even if they did, he did not see how the canon law could at present be binding upon Englishmen. There were many provisions in the canon law which were professedly inoperative among 113; and he con tended, therefore, that, as a whole, we could no longer be subjeet to its enactments. By the 13th canon it was provided that a man who after having been baptised had married two wives, could not beceme a bishop or a clergyman; and there were in other canons provisions equally obsolete. In discussing that question rsferenee was frequently made to the Council of Illiberis; but the decree of that council did not invalidate those marriages; it merely imposed as a penalty on parties contracting them nett they should abstain from receiving com munion for five years. The fact was that in con sidering the opinions held in remote ages upon that question it sheuld_ not be forgotten that the fathers of the early Church had systematically undervalued marriage in any shape, and had been perpetually en . gaged an exalting celibacy; so that it could not be a matter of surprise if they bad judged with undue severity any particular species of matrimonial connexion. One father of the Church had denounced a second marriage as improper and indecorous, and had said that a third marriage was no marriage at all. About the year 1000 Pope Alexander 111. prohibited marriages within the seventh degree of kindred. Pope Innocent about the year 1200, relaxed that law, and per mitted mirriagea beyond the fourth degree; and that was at present, he believed, the state of the law upon the subject in the Romas Catholic Church. The canoes of 1603, which had been passed into this country, were frequently introduced into that discussion. But he be lieved those canons could not be held to be binding on laymen. That was the opinion of Lord Hardwiche, who had so decided on the ground that they had not been assented to by the representatives of the people. And further, many of thole canons might be held to have become inopereive, so that it was doubtful whether they were binding oven on clergymen. Bishcp Short, in his History of the Church of England, said that many of those canons had been superseded by subsequent Acts of Parliament, and it was much to be wished that they were remodelled. Again, Archdeacon Sharpe, an emi nent dignitary of the Church in the last century, said, that as to the canons, no one could say that clergymen were bound to obey them all, for alterations in the cus toms and manners of the country had made some of them impracticable. He (the Earl of St. Germans) thought it was to be regretted that the canons were not more in accordance with the temper and circumstances of the time'; hut while they continued in existence they should either be received or rejected as a whole. There was a peasage upon that subject in a judgment of Chief Justice Vane, sn, which he would read to their Lord ships, although he admitted that it referred generally to the eanon law of former times, and not to the canon law of this country. Chief Justice Vaughan said that the canon law varied in successive ages, and that that , which was perpetually changing could not be taken as a measure of rectitude. —(Hear.) It might be said that those marriages were opposed to the decrees of synods of the Church. In answer to that argument he should observe that the, 21st Article of the Church of England stated that gene ral councils might be called together without the com mand of princes; but that, when gathered together, they might err, and had erred, and that the doctrines they laid down were not entitled to credit unless " taken out •of the Holy Scripture." Now, he contended that the ddctrine of those persons who denounced these marriages pas not "taken out of the Holy Scripture." The late Bish o p of Llandaff had said that a marriage with a de ceased w if e ' s sister was not opposed to the Word of God; and !he present Bishop of Durham entertained a similar op in ion, although it a pp eare d th a t he could not go the length of supporting the present measure. He believed, too, that • other mem bers of the episcopal bench enter tained the same v i ew of the subject. H e s hould observe, Y the Bill cler g y men w ould not however, compelled to celebrate those marriages which they might consider r d op e posed to the Divine law. But he would p question. Hear history of their legislation upon that q having been many years: marri e d enry VIII., after to the wife of his de ceased brother, had induced Parliament to declare that il h le the gitimac y everhen marriage invalid. and to Itigreasi ee w i tc h t, d ow, t hen passed born of the un ion. • Tho A passed had been subsequently repealed, anatfbteearsdsuebvjeercatl, h c hanges in the legislation of that reign u pon the 32d of Henry VIII. had been Passed; and after anrddgtaher ofe wards become the law in the matter. In passed,t the Queen Mary another A ct had been had since been no alteration in the law u p o n the sub ject, until the Act known as Lord Lyndhurst's Act. Previously to that latter Act considerable doubts had existed as to the legality of those marriages. It was stated by Coko that a case of the kind bad been tried in the Court of Common Pleas, and that the judges there had decided that such marriages could not be im peached, and were not contrary to Ac t of Par liament, inasmuch as they were not within the prohibited degrees. But it could not he denied that at a Icier period the current of opinion had run in a con trary direction. A case of the kind had been tried not . - many years ago, and in deciding, upon upon that case Lord e D en man, with Justice Coleridge and other judges, had ,44.4 in it has their o pi n i on that such marriages were il- Nit — WS - PA r 31v..Juittce Earl had also arrived at the same although very mu c h t o th e surpr i se o f all , ~ go t o acquainted with the opinion which he had so pressed to the contrary when consulted upon the • by counsel. The Act of Lord Lyndhurst had tlc e t , :zt used for the purpose of removing the doubts and die& oroltad by the th©n e--- t - f 4 ,5 mg state o t he that stet marriagia previously COl2. 2 THE SUN, tracted had been declared valid. The Right Rev. Pre late near him (the Bishop of Exeter), in presenting a petition against the Bill then before their Lordships, had called it . a measure for legalising incestuous marriages. But in so doing the Right Rev. Prelate had as sumed the very point in dispute. The supporters of the Bill contended that those marriages were not incestuous. The Right Reverend Prelate knew, however, that by the use of that term he might damage the cause of his opponents. But he should like to know whether the Right Re.V. Prelate had supported the Act of Lord Lyndhurst, for if he had he must have sanctioned connexions which ho at preseat called inces tuous. The Noble Earl then proceeded to refer to a speech of Lord Ellesmere's in reference to this subject. The main object of the statute, the Noble Lord had said, was retrospective, and it was intended to be in con firmation of a certain class of marriages which took place within forbidden degrees and which were not void, but voidable by certain proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts. By the 9th canon of the Church people were re• quired to refrain from contracting these marriages at a ll. " All marriages so made," said the canon, " and so contracted shall be adjudged incestuous an(?. unlawful, and such marriages shall be deemed wrong from the be ginning." And yet these marriages, so pronounced by the canon law, were bound by the Right Rev. Prelate and that House in the bonds of indissoluble union. —(Hear, hear.) " The inconsistenc:es of the law were fzlt by runny individuals and many Hon. Members on former occasions; and the difficulties to be mot with were also folly appreciated. And he thought that certain agree ments had been made with regard to that measure, and concessions yielded in consequence of the lateness of the period at which it had been introduced, and it had been distinctly understood that those who consented to the measure did not do so finally, but as affirming the propo sition that it was a subject which called for some further inquiry on a future occasion." We bad now in this country a considerable number of marriages which were invalid in consequence of the state of the law. He (the Earl of St. Germans) had in his possession a consider able number of letters written by parties who were inte rested in that question, and addressed to various indivi duals. There was ene from a person to a Right Rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Lincoln (as was understood), expressing a strong wish that marriages with a deceased 'wife's sister might not be prohibited. He believed the parochial clergy all through the country were inimical to the state of the law, the evils of which they knew. When parties went to them to be married under such peculiar .circumstances, they, of course, explained to them that they could not officiate, and that their union would be illegal. The parties then, perhaps, sought other clergy men, and either got married by them, or were now liv ing in a state of concubinage. There were several emi nent men who understood the question as well as any of their Lordships, who were of opinion that the practical working of that law was deserving of the most important and serious consideration. His Noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had brought forward a measure on that subject; so had his Noble Friend Lord Ellesmere. his Noble Friends, however, had not succeeded. In the meanwhile a commission had been appointed, composed of several very distinguished men—some of them mem bers of that right reverend bench—for instance the Bishop of Lichfield, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Blake, en Irish gentleman of considerable legal acumen, and Mr. Ru therford, a most able Scotch lawyer. When Lord Wharncliffe had first brought in that measure, his Right Honourable Friend had been opposed to it; yet so convinced had he afterwards become of its salutary results—as soon as he had given it some consi deration, he had brought forward such a measure him self. The Noble Earl then proceeded to refer to the re port of the Commissioners. They had not made any distinct recommendation to Parliament on the subject, but they had decided on the nature of the measure which they thought ought to be brought in. They had exa mined a great number of witnesses, men in various classes of life, and entertaining various opinions, and the general bias had been in favour of that measure. In America also two of the moat eminent judges, Chancellor Kent and Judge Strong, were in favour of the principle of such marriages, which in America it appeared were considered the best kind of marriages which could take place. Lord Wharncliffe and Lord Ellesmere and Mr. Stuart Wortley were not men that were fond of inno vation, or who would introduce measures of change without good reason. Mr. Stuart Wortley had brought in his Bill in 1841, and had a majority of 34 on the second reading, and in the last session, when introduced, the majority had increased to 54.-- (Flear.) It had been found that no less than 294 Members of the House of Commons were in favour of the proposed measure, and recorded their opinions for it, while only 223 were against it. A law like that was in force in every Protestant state in Europe, except in a few of the can tons of Switzerland (as the Noble Earl was understood). In the Church of Rome it was not said that these mar riages were prohibited by the law of God, but was al leged they were forbidden by the laws of the Church. But dispensations ware granted to those seeking them, and those were considered sufficient to render them good. Some reference had been made to the regulations ot the Greek Church in this respect, and several gentlemen had been examined before the Commission, and had put in papers and documents on the subject. However, it did not appear from any of the evidence that the Greek Church considered marriages with the sister of a de ceased wile as forbidden by the Bible.—(Hear, hear.) Some doubt had b.ken thrown on the statements made with regard to some of the City parishes on that ques tion. Now, it appeared that in the pariah of St. MrtriTchrot, no f.awe u than UR nagoa hq3 hoar. at.w)o.rect. These cases consisted chiefly of the smaller class ot tradesmen, and some of the labouring population also. All these parties considered they were justly married in the sight of God, and that the law of man did not pro hibit it. Marriages of that sort, also, within eight miles of the General Post-office, had been discovered to exist in the following numbers : In Ltuniseth, 11; in the Borough, 72 ; ill St, Geerge's-in-tho-Es,st, 25; in Westminster, 29; in Walworth, 12; in Deptford, 10; in Woolwich, 15. It would appear that such marriages had increased very ranch between 1835 and 1840, and between 1845 and 1850, as various statistical documents to which he referred showed. ' They had, then, no less than 120,000 petitioners in favour of that Bill. No less than 150,000 had applied to the House of Commons. He might be told that those who know ingly violated the law had no right to come to the Legislatuie tb ask for reli!f; but there were a great many persons who - did not think that the marriages were prohibited - by the law of God, and therefore not by the laws of man. There ware massy persons who were now living in a State of illicit intercourse in the eyes of the law, who would desire no b e t ter t h a n to be marr i e d i n the face of the Church. They had heard of cases where the sister would not take charge of the deceased's sister's children, nor live in the house with the widowed brother in-law. If a man W 35 so 'proflikate as to look at his sister-in-law as a future wife no law they could enact would make him a better rnan.--(llear.) He agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate that if parties were living together and able to marry, but did not, there was fair ground for supposing they did not want to marry. For his own part he had conceived that the functions of the deceased mother could ever be best dischs.rged towards the children by her sister; but no system of legislation could ever compel people of diffsrent degri es and tempe raments, ages end condi:ions, to unite themselves against their own will. And there would always be obj. Gaon able marriages, but that was no reason that these mar riages they were discussing should be dhatountenaneed unless they were told they were forbidden by the I siv of nature, or inconsistent with the best interests of so ciety; and until that was done the burden of the proof lay upon them (the opponents of the measure). They had no right to have a law productive of so much un happiness and general disregard of their enactments. He had shown them that the law wasdneffectual. At the presort moment great doubts existed as to marriages which were contracted abroad. He asked them to con sider in what light those marriages were loeked upon by the world. He would call their attention to a case in which most respectable parties were concerned. The names and particulars of the case had been published al ready, and so he did not think he committed a breach of decorum in mentioning it. He meant the base of one of the brothers of Lord Marcus Hill. The latter had been ex amined, and gave testimony to the following effect:—His brother had been received into society in the same man ner after as before the event alluded to; and that indeed he and his wife had been visited by Lord Win chilsea and all the most distinguished and respectable people in their neighbourhood, who had expressed their strong approbation of their marriage. He (the. Earl' of St. Germans) would ask their Lordships, would Lord Winchilsea be likely to have associated with parties living in a state of coucabivage—or whether he did not consider the marriage between Lord Claude and Lady Hill as valid and good? In conclusion, he would call upon their Lordships to reflect upon the awful responsi bility which they incurred in maintaining that law, be cause these marriages, he believed, to be sanctioned, not prohibited, by the law of God; they therefore incurred the awful responsibility of patting asunder those whom God had joined together.—(Hear, hear.) He called upon them, if they were satisfied—if there was a doubt on the subject, to give that House a further opportunity of considering that very important question which he had then so imperfectly endeavoured to bring before them.—(Hear.) Tho Archbishop of CANTERBURY rose with much reluctance to address their Lordships on a subject on which be had far rather remain silent, and which he re gretted should ever have been brought before their Lordships for discussion. Not that he had any' doubt on the line which ho should take or the opinion which he should maintain; but it was painful to differ from the sentiments of many excellent men—painful to oppose the Noble Earl, who had introduced this subject with so much research and so much moderation, and painful to do violence to the interests and warm affections which were engaged on what be must be allowed to think the side of error. But ho had a duty to perform, which ho must not hesitate to fulfil. It would not, however, be necessary to trouble their Lordships at any length; the argument on which he relied, and on which he grounded his opinion, lay in a small compass ; i n fact, he con sidered that the question at issue had been decided for them, being already settled by the lattof God.--(Hear, hear.) And surely it was no slight advantage that ;t should be so settled, and that on a subject involving so many subject interests, r ests marriage, a d exciting such strong feelings, as the a line should be drawn for us be yond which we must not deviate. 'ln a kindred sub ject, likewise relating to marriage, we had a like afiveo tage;—in the case of divorce how many vague reasor ings and conjectural arguments were silenced at once by the single sente nce o f the di v i ne law, which declared the marriage tie to be indissoluble, except only in the case of unfaithfulness? And so, on the question bef ore t h em, it was highly expedient that they should be told by au thority. which could not err where the conjugal relation ship might and might not exist, where the ties of affinity and consanguinity began. This he considered to be law down in the 18th chapter of Leviticus. The chapter began by condemning the practices or the nations by which the Israelites were surrounded, as displeasing to LONDON, ' the Most High, and not to be suffered in a people which he had chosen for His own, chosen to preacree Ilis name and the knowledge of His laws in the wo:11, until that fuller revelation of His will which was hereafter to b made at the appointed time. "Ye shall do my judg ments and walk after my ordinances; for I am the Lord." After this solemn beginning, the well-known prohibitions were enumerated. The principle was first stated, " None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him." Specific cases followed, which would violate the prin ciple; cases, first of consangunity, nearness of blood, members of the same family. " Thou shalt not approach thy father's sister, thy mother's sister; thy father's brother's wife; they are thy parents, near kinswomen." Though there was no nearness of blood, there was that nearness of kin, that (as was known to infinite wisdom) would render such alliances, if permitted, injurious to the welfare of families, and of the community. Then followed verse 16th, which settled the present question —" Thou shalt not approach thy brother's wife." Be tween the sister of the wife and the brother's husband the analogy was so clear and plain, that what was for• bidden in the one case must clearly be f wbidden in the other. No possible reason could be assigned why the brother should not marry the brother's widow which did not equally forbid the sister from allying herself with the sister's widower.—(Hear, hear.) If they waited till the instances were specifically named to which the prohibition was to extend, they would find no exact prohibition of connexions which were most revolting to all our feelings. The father was not expressly for• bidden to approach his daughter. Out of the thirty prohibited degrees, fourteen were specified in terms, and sixteen are left to implication and analogy.—(Hear.) It was argued, however, that the effect of the 16th verse was neutralized by the sentence which followed:— " Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her in her lifetime ;" as if the prohibition ceased with the life of the sister. But he need not tell their Lordships that the interpretation of this passage was b 0 uncertain that no argument could bo based upon it. In the text of our own version the words were as he had stated them. But in the margin of our Bible, which was of nearly equal authority with the received text, the words were : " Thou shalt not take one wife to another." In the opinion of the best critics, there was as mach au thority for one interpretation as for the other. And it seemed to be a case where the ju dicious rule of Paley might be properly applied, who warned them not to suffer what they did know to be dis turbed by what they did not know. They did know the meaning of the 16th verse—" Thou shalt not approach thy brother's wife." It could not be disputed. They did not know the accurate meaning of the verse that fol lowed. In the Court of Queen's Bench, when a cause connected with this subject was tried, six different inter pretations of the passage were alleged. Therefore what was plain must not be disturbed by a sentence of which they only knew that it was of uncertain and disputed sig nification, especially, where the interpretation of the law which he maintained was defended by the opinion of the Christ:tin Church from the earliest times. He did not, indeed, profess to treat that judgment as infallible, or to assert that it precluded their taking the subject into consideration. The Church, though consisting of a con gregation of faithful men, was still a congregation of fallible men, among whom error might possibly be per mitted to prevail. But the concurrent opinions of religious persons and collected churches in different ages died countries would never be lightly disregarded or set aside without cogent reasons, more particu larly when their decision was not in accordance with the natural bias and inclination, which would be rather to relax than to tighten the prohibition.—(dear, hear.) This appeared from the practice of some Protestant states of Europe in modern times, and from what had taken place in the Roman Catholic Church. The mar riages in question had never been heard of in that church until the fifteenth century. In that period of corruption the Pope, in the plenitude of his power as the vice regent of the Most High, took upon himself to grant a dispensation to Emmanuel of Portugal, who m laud his sister-in-law, and afterwards to Ferdinand of Sicily for an alliance with his aunt. He maintained the principle, but in practice allowed it to be infringed, yet in terms which contained their own confutation—Si urgens ncces sitas vel evidens utilitas postularit. Their Lordships would judge of the validity of such a dispensation. And with whom did it originate? Not with one who was an ornament to the communion to which he belonged—as there had been many such ornaments—but of one who was a disgrace to any church; the very last example which a pure church or a moral nation would desire to fullow.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that it would not be followed by their Lordships, and that they would concur with him in rejecting thy proposed Bill.—(Hear, hear.) They were toad much of the inconvenience and the many mischiefs which attended the law as it now stood; and no doubt it was mnch to be lamented that this or any other law, Divine or human, should be transgressed. But the part of the Legislature must be not to lower the law to the standard of the practice, but to elevate the practice to the standard of the law.—(Hear, hear.) Very grievous mischief arose from all unlawful connexions, from the practice of concubinage, for instance; but we did not, for that reason, dis pense with the obligation of marriage, or legitimize the guiltless progeny of a guilty connexion. He did not deny that there were cases in legistation when con venience or expediency must be considered; and when they might justly weigh the evils on one side with the evils on the other, and decide between them as best they might, whether " to bear the ills we had, or run the risk of others that we knew not of." But reference to expe diency an pposed the absence of acknowledged principle oc nettled law. When Trtecipte began the provision of expediency was at an end; and he held that, in the pre sent cae, they were bound by a settled principle and Devine law, and cou'd allow of no other consideration. —(Hear, hear.) On these grounds he trusted that their Lordships would hand down to their children the law of marriage in the same parity and hitegrity as they had received it from their ances:ors. Ile should not trespass longer on their attenden, but sit down with moving, as an amendment, that the further con ide ration of this Biii should be postponed to that day sic mouths.—(Llear. hear.) The Bishop of EXE PER seconded the amendment. He agreed with the Most Rev. Prelate who had just sat down, that the subject had been introduced by the Noble Earl with great ability and moderation. The Noble Earl had referred to a phrase which he had yesterday made use of in presenting petitions against these " in cestuous." marriages. In using tho phrase '• incestuous . ' in reference to thse marriages, he was simply doing his duty as a bishop of the Church of England. That these marriages were incestuous—that they were forbidden by the law of God—was the express dsclaration of that Church of which he was a bishop; and he should be , ashamed of himself if he were to deny his adherence to the doctrine of the Church on that point. The Right Rev. Prelate then referred to the Act of 1835, and rematked that he might be asked who he had supported that Act if he deemed such marriages incestuous. His answer was, that he bad consented to that Act, not because he considered the marriages not incestuous, but because he wished to protect the interests of the children. It ought also to be recollected that parties who had contracted these marriages were not exempted by the statute from penalties, and might be proceeded against for incest. The Noble Earl who introduced the subject had quoted the authority of Bishop Jeremy Taylor in support of the Bill. Ho also would refer to Jeremy Taylor, and would recommend to the Noble Earl's attention to a passage in the " Law of Conscience," book iti., chapter ii., rule 3, in the argu ment with reference to the marriage of first cousins, in which ho would find it stated—" What better determi nation can there be or the identical words • near of kin,' than the express piarticulars made by God himself in that very place, Leviticus xviii." He needed not to tell their Lordships that the Mosaic law was admirably and properly divided into three parts—the ceremonial, the civil, and the moral law. Now, whatever might have been said with regard to the c Jremonial and civil laws of the Jews, no one had ever denied that the Church held the moral law to be obligatory. The Israelites Wefe called on in the most solemn manner to observe the commands of Ged:—" After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring ye, shall ye not do." That commandment they were required to obey, " that the land spew not you out also when she defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations shall be cut off from among their people." Now among the abominations thus referred to were marriages such toe those which the Noble Earl now asked them to sanction and legalise. The Most Rev. Prelate who last spoke had reminded the Noble Earl that his observations did not meet the case of marriages with a wife's sister. The word of God expressly recog nised the connexion of affinity to be the same as that of consanguinity. The phrase " uncover the nakedness," was never applied in the Mosaic law except to inces tuous connexions. In the 17th verse of the 18th Levi ticus it was expressly declared that a man should not take his wile's son's daughter, or her daughter's daugh ter, because " they are her near kinswomen." Such marriages would be incestuous and wicked. The — Earl of ST. GERMANS—They are her de scendants. The. Bishop of EXETER—True, they were of the deceased line, but the Noble Earl was mistaken if he supposed that the prohibition did not extend to the col lateral live. Two steps in tae deceased line was a more remote connexion than one in a collateral line. The Noble Earl had given them a very able comment on the 18th verse of the 18th Leviticus, but the view which he had taken of it was not that which had been taken of it by many able and learned men, and among others by the late Chief Justice Vaughan, and by the present Hebrew Professor of Cambridge, who had favoured him (the Bishop of Exeter) with what he conceived to be the pro per construction of it. The words " in her lifetime," was a strong expression used in Scripture to show that the thing should never be done. The Noble Earl had said that there was no prohibition of these marriages in the New Testament. He differed from the Noble Earl on that point. There was more than ono important instance to show that such marriages were forbidden. John the Baptist de nounced Herod for living in incestuous union with Hero dias, his brother Philip's wife. He knew the Church of Rome held that that connexion was merely en adulterous one; but it was remarkable that St. Mark should have used the words, "tor he had married her." Herod was, therefore, denounced by John, not merely for living with another man's wife, but for haring married his de ceased brother's widow. It was raid' there marriages took place in ail the continental states; but Russia was ignored. As the example of Prussia was specially recom mended to this country, ho would ievire what was done were these marriages allowed, b u t a l so s and nieces. The commissioners ought, at those o there. se o n least, No tt o ch t only weresw no ticed this in their report; for, sur e ly, they would !c not recommend such a monstrous law for this country. Tho law of divorce in Rues* whose population was a little less than that of England and Wales, was so lax that 7,000 or 8,000 divorces took place in three years, or upwards of 2,000 annually. Their Lordships must remember that they could. nut WEDNESDAY EVENING, i stop where this I3ill. stopped. Ev - n the late Bishop of Llendati had said it did not go for enough, and that there ought to be a thorough revisten ot the law of marriage. If their Lordships glee any eneouragreneet to this B;11, they an tat be prepared to adopt all that had beemadopt- din G 'many. Referrii g again te the report he found the opinions of c stein ef the clergy quoted; but the Irish clergy spoke of the measure wi h abhorrence—as revolting to their feelings and most unchristian, In Scotland the opinion of the clergy was decidedly against it; and in their confession of faith all marriages within the degrees of consanguinity or affi nity weradeecribed as incestuous. The Advocate-Ge neral staeld that such marriages were held by the people generally in great abhorrence. The abode Earl hed wisely exduiled Scotland altogether from his Bill; out what then bccanee of the alleged principles ot right and justice on which the measure was said to bo founded? Was the hw of nature and justice to be made an atf.dr of geography?—(Hear, hear.) Against whole bodies of clergy in Scotland and Ireland the opinion only of some "ew individuals was to be place?. But what of the Church of England? By her 93th canon, agreed to in solemn convocation, she ha I pro nounced thee mate - lazes contrary is the law of Gel The Noble Earl adeged that the law of God aesthete expressly forbade there; but would he se; no his opiniee against the Church at large, thus solemnly declared ? Though tin late Bishop of Lletedalf WAS entitled to aid the honour which that bench could confer, he derived none of that honour from giving the sanction of his high name •in the conclusion of these commissioners, One portion of the report would lead to the conclusion that there was an absolute negation of all moral feeling on the subject of marriage amongst cenain classes; but, strange to say, this was totally contradicted by the evi dence. Thecase of an officer was cited; but he stated his ignorancE of these marriages being fee bidden by the Church. The Greek Church, extending over a country as large anal )opulous as the whole of western Christen dom, enforced its law throughout its jurisdiction, without excettion. In Scotland, such marriages, it had been shown, vere regarded with abborwence; and in Ire land the minis of the people had never been polluted with such doe rives as were now sought to be inculcated. The committee themselves admitted that if parties c ruld but be convinced that these marriages were contrary to the Divine lar they would abstain from them. Every one admitted that marriage between brothers and sisters in the earliest periods of the world took place; it was known that tilt world had been originally peopled in this way; consequently that degree of union was net thou unlawful; and the question ought, therefore, to be con sidered with regard to the existing state of society, and by the light of .Christian principle. This Bill asked Parliament to make valid certain marriages which it distinctly declared to be incestuous and contrary to law. —(Hear, hear.) ~ The third clause reserved the rights of the ecclesiastical courts, and declared that nothing therein contained should affect the doctrine of the Church of England with regard to those mar riages, that doctrine being that they were incestuous. It had been armed that if the Divine law was not quite clear the doubt ought to be given in favour of these marriages; bat it should be remembered that ever since the second ceettry of Christianity such had been held to be the Divine late. Believing that God had declared these marriages:, to be sinful, let their Lordships beware of giving their eviction to such a measure. By doine, so they could not make that which was incest not incest. If the House was bitting in its judicial capacity, it would be bound to declare such marriages incestuous, as they were held to be so by the cccleeieetical law and the judges of the land. He exhorted them, then, not to yield to any feeling in favour either of those of their own rank or others who hal fallen into error but to beware of in fringing, by any act of theirs, that which had al Nays been regarded as the law of God.—(Hear.) The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S f iund himself in a difficult position in respect of the Bill. He telt com pelled to go a certain way with its proposer, and also to differ from him la . some particulars. Ile ddf _ired from those who made the law of the Church depend on the interpretation of the passages in Scripture in question. He was not proffered to say that the prohibition of such marriages was based on the law of God. Tho passages referred to weneimore ceremonial than doctrinal, and applied rather will° moral than to the religious law. It did not, thetlfore, follow that every ordinance on each subjects wile - a general and immutable law. The law existed, and 'as necessary to be designated at some point. It' the . ihesagee in Leviticus aces solely con sulted, the prohibition might no doubt still bt assumed to exist; but theta was no express prohibition in fact, and the introduction of such marriages was a mere matter of inference. The marriages interded to be legalised were not alone net expressly prohibited, but were tacitly sanctioned. ThOe sati wit was, in his opinion, one on which the Hoteas lead a full right to legislate; anal the legislation shpuld be nut entirely on civil grounds nor entirely on"teligious. He considered the law in question a law of that description, and he there fore wished it s - to be permanent. Au important feature in the' case was, however, that this opinion was not the opinion of the immense body of the clergy of the Church. believed, in spite of all he had heard, anat . -the law could not be called ineffectual and inoperative. The simple question was, whether the subject at issue fetqnd a responstve echo is the bosom of the community. Ile was of opinion that it did. The voice of Ireland 'was unanimous against the Bill; the voice of Scotland was almost tquelly SO. It was because he was deeply impressed with the danger of a change to the institutions of the country tha", he was opposed to that change in this in,ta eco. Thu law was not in itu-atd .0; inhooucti the cbar,..cter of the in dividuals who had been idled, d to; there were, no doubt, cases of suffer:rig:hut he did not consider them cases of hardthin• fiat iS'ad bound to consider the state of feeling as represent, d by the petitiene thet hal bee's laid upon the table itt the Iloase. The Hone hail been told thaat a society he taese termed to advocate the qeeetion, and they had publithenia pap-c, which lie lied no doubt vast in every one's hatd.w, but, if there was no other argu ment aetaiost theatatill, that paper would furnish hies with zullitticnt tottypose it. One of ace evils that, were intended to be- elituedied by the Bill vies of a vart ieg and uncertain nature, capable of being increased or les sened by legislation, but with regard to Vie other evil insisted on by ttivilldble Earl, it was inherent in human nature and couldente be ma t by any legislation. On these grounds he took hieestend, Red althouele the measure might afford grAficati6n: to some, it would bring jealousy, distrust - Raid alarm into other families. There fere, he could nevelaconsent to share the raJpensibility of the Bill with the Neble Earl. The &snap ofe4OR‘VICH would vote against the Bill, as he was- deOdedlye opposed to it. lie did not, however, think itnaely itsfringezritut on any Scriptural command. He stiNgild net make that house a school for Biblical criticism-Oast it was eeli known that the Scrip ture which contaitied tl - isre presumed prohibition of thee() marriages was given to the Jewish people. And it was a remarkable fact that they never interpreted the passage in the sense of a prohibition. It was nut to be s-opposed ihat the Divine lawsehould contain any contradiction. When the case of a woman:: marrying. her deceased sis ter's letp.band was bienaght More one higher than tae Scriptures themselves, he cast no censure upon Whatever, howevViebad the t ffect of weakening merality was to be objected std on grounds, and he eaw in this Bill a tenderly to that effect. For many year , the law on the su'tjelt was strictly prollibitery; to repell those statutes nowatetuld be the direct and couplets sanction of these raaerihges. He spoke with the greatest respect of the promoters of this Bill, bet he felt helped to sly it would-••eittlate the most-sacred feelings of the religious woxid.: - The . women of England were most deeply affected by- thiS -Bill, and he would undertake to say that ninetsanine cut of a hundred of them were op ' nosedeo it. The Rill: if passed into law, would dieturts , the hest feelings of taltitan nature—feelithp which they ought to hold sacred; fend which exercised so important an influence on theellotati and social welfare of tho com munity. At the ettitieeratto ho acknowledged that the marriage law, as iffnaorw existed, bora hardly on some portions of the cot unity, for toot was something approaching to bigotry and intolerence in putting a cer taiii interpretation oniee marriage law, and then re :king all other parties abide by that interpretation. Fled the Noble Lord based hia measure on the principle of not interfering with the reli4icue observances of the Jews, or had he claimed a siarbar exemption for any other body of religionists, he ehould rot have been indisposed to support it; but he could not agree to a measure, which. however it might give relief to comparatively few, would at the same time sacrifice the comfort and domestic happiness of the largest portion of the community in the United Kingdom o f England, Ireland, and especially Scotland. Lord GAGE (who was most indistinc tl y he ard in the gallery) was understood t o support the B ill, cont e n ding that any law which r es t r i c t e d a man in. the exercise of a civil right that c oncerne d his happiness and comfort was a tyrannical law a n d o ught to be r e p ealed, unle ss it could be shown th a t i t was a Divine law, or at least that it was so indisp tesa bl e an d so peremptorily expedient that its maintenan c e cou ld be justified on that ground alone. The Je ws h a d no s uch prohibitions; neither were the Roma n such marriages, by means of dispensations. There was no scriptural prohibition corresponding with the present state of the law, which was only sustained by excessive from its repeal had Catholics precluded from engaging in modern - sensibility. The hardships which it inflicted on so many persons were very great, whilst the dangers ap prehendedpetitions which been greatly exeggerated. The Noble Lord then referred to the rarge number of and implored their Lerdships not to perpetuate the ex isting evil which it sought to rem opinion upon the subkct of remove. the office he had the had been presented iii favour of the Bill, Lord CAMPBELL, from . honour to hold, felt it his duty to express his a measure which sought to wake so important uud fatal a chimp in the law of Eng land. Ile wo u ld k eep t h e i r Lordships but a very short s p ace of time. The argum en ts on both sides—so much had been Po familiar to thei r L or d s hi ps . The arguments egeinst the Bill had been th at n i g h t re iterated by the Moat Rev. Prelate in a manner which must produce an important impression, not on l y on t h e minds of their Lordships, but ' on the mind of th e na ti on . 118 h-ad listened with de light to the opinions he bad heard thug delivered that night, arid he trusted that the agitation to which the • Noble Viscount who had last addressed their Lordships had referred, was neoriy drawing to a close. He most likewise express his athoiration of the manner in which the subject bad heal introduced by the Noble Earl who sat at the table. The Noble Earl had shown great research, great learning, great ecweness, and power . ful reasoning ; he was actuated by the purest and most honourable. motives. So ware those who had preceded him in either House of Parliament. Those individnais whose names laud been mentioned by the Noble Lord had been actuated by the most disinterested motives, so were many of the petitioners who had ap proached their Lordship,' Home in favour of the Bill. But he (Lord Campbell) would not do his duty unless he reminded their Lordships of the manner in which the agitation on the subject had been begun and carried on, for the purpose of bolo; the ruettstue p.ized. They FEBRUARY 26 1851. hal 'irritations for the Reform Bill, to' the repeal of the conore es. and other great pelihcel meesures; but this was the first :item that a society lied been established tor the purpose of eisaegieg a law resembling that of the law of tuarriege, aed teller, purely for the perpeses of per smell interest, a great effete, had been made to change public opini•in upon such a :subject. He had no hesita tion is •aeiter, from the evidence which hail been laid before him, that the agitation had been begun by those who had violated the law, and had been carried on by them in conjunction with those who had entered into engagements which the law forbade. Let them see the manner in which they had begun it. They began by retaining counsel and solicitor:, by sending lecotrers all over the cornett.), by writing pamphlets, and by holding peblic ineetiegs, where their advocates spike from the platform. The topic they eommeeced with was the doctrine that, as the law then steed, those merriages with a deceased wife's sister were pesfectly lawful, and thus they gave occasion to in , teacss of the commission of breaches of the law, and then they brought forward these instances as reasons for a:tering the law; and so posieively hal they affirmed that the law of England allowed those marriages—although, as had l,een well said, ever since Christianity had been first plaetsti in England in the see ind century down to the present time, they were forbidden—that the questien was brought irate the courts cf law, and was solemnly argued in the Court of Queen's Bench in the time of his distinguished predecessor Lord Denman. The question was raised on that occasion, whether those marriages were lawful or void, Cud by the unanimous opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench these marriages were de clared void and incestuous. Some allusion had been made to a wish which had been expressed by a Learned Judge for whom he entertained the most profound respect as well as affection. That opinion, however, given by the Learned Judge when at the bar, emflist the haste of professional dut'es, and without having time to consider the question fally, did net in any degree affect the ques tion; it only added to the weight of the contrary opi nion which that same Learned Judge had given upon the bench when the case had been solemnly argued before him by counsel on both sides; and so convincing were the reasone given by the judges on the occasion he bad referred to, that the promoters of the measure were forced to bring the point before the final court of ap peal, tend it was from that moment allowed by them that the law forbade these marriages, and that they could not be legally solemnised without an alteration in the law. What was their next proceeding? They stated that the law prohibiting these marriages had been introduced by Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and that that Act ought to be re pealed; and several petitions were presented praying for its repeal, and they went about the country asserting that until Lord Lyndhurst's Act passed these marriages had been saectioned bylaw. The fact was that Lord Lyndhurst's Act had made no alteration in the law; it had only altered the mode of procedure by which theft uulawful marriages were to be set aside. It had been previously a great defect in the law of England that marriages, however censurable on the ground of incest, were not void.. If a man married his own sister or mie her the marriage was not void—it stood good until it was set aside by the decree of a competent judge. Lord Lyudhut.st's Act very praperly enacted that those marriages which heretofore were only voith able should be void, as they had been before the Re , formation, and as they were now in Scotland. Lord Lyedhurst introduced no now law, but improved the mode of procedure—the manner in which the law was to be in future enforced. Our ancestors had acted with great wisdom when they dissented from the Church of Rome, as had been stated by the Right Rsv. Prelate near him. There was nothing in which the Church of Rome hail to annoyed the people of this country by its usur• petion of power in it than by its disturbance of the law of marriage. It multiplied its prohibitory decrees as regarded the law of marriage to such an extent that nothing could be done without a dispensation from R tme, and thus they added to the power and to the wealth of their Church. At the Reformation, however, the people of this country drew a distinct lice of demarcation, indicating tile prohibited degrees, and al the marriages beyond that line were regarded as lawful, while those within it were declared unlawful. Notwithstanding the citations which had been made from law books by the Noble Earl, that was considered the law of England from the time of Henry VIII to the present time. There had been an attempt in the reign of Charles 11. to allow those marriages, but they were discountenanced by the judges, and Chief Justice Vaughan, with the other judges, concurred in the con struction of the 324 Henry VIII., that those marriages were illegal, and tke law continued so until the pre sent agitation; and he trusted their Lordships would not now alter the law. If they said so by a large majority of that House that agitation would soon die away. Ile would merely say, that his humble opinion on the subject entirely concurred. with that of the Right Reverend Prelate, and ho had no difficulty in saying that those marriages with a deceased wife's sister were forbidden by the law of the land, The Noble Vi•clunt who had last addressed their Lord ships seemed to him (Lord Campbell) to treat the sub ject as if it were one of a merely physical nature; jut it was not simply a physical question—it was also a moral and a social question; and the House was to consider what was most conducive to the purity, the comfort, and the happiness of domestic life.—(Hear, hear.) Would the Noble Viscount say, then, that a stepfather might marry a stepdaughter; that a step-son might marry a stepmother? Would the Noble Viscount say that that would conduce to the comfort and purity of domestic life ? • Lord GAGE—No, cert:lnly net. , ford CAMPBELL--Where, then, was the line to be drawn? Surely, by placing consanguiuity and affinity upon the same footing,—(`leer, hear.) The Noble i Viscount, also app ested to thisle that there was no dis tinction betwten the sister of the wife end any other women; so that any connexion which took place between he arid the husband ie the lifetime of the wife would be nothing more than simple adultery; hot in opposition to this view ef the matter the opinion of Lord Tnurlow was that such. a connexion was d-cidedly incestueus. And was it possible that they could have the benefit of the lenity of domestic life unless inter course of this description was considered incestuous and as contrary alike to the law of God and man? Ile be lieved not, and that it was wily by such a feeling being iustilltd into the mind, and becoming a sort of instinct with all who came under its operation, that the purity and happiness of domestic life which we now enjoyed in this country could be secured. With regard to the num ber of instances in which the law had been violated, he (Lord Campbell) was of opinion that there bad been much exaggeration. lie had already explained one source of that violation, but there was another source which also required notice. In the counties of Lancaster and Stafford there were a good many persons of the Ru men Ca:holie, persuasion, and he remembered that some time ago the then Bishop of Melipotamue, who had now a more sounding title, and of whom he did not wish to speak with the slight disrespect, stated what were the doctrines and practice.; of his Church ; and he cer tainly said that in the R :men Catholic Church they looked much less to the law of the land than to the power of the clergy in enacting a law for themselves; that since the Act of 1835 passed, making these mar riages read, although they could not among Roman Catholics be celebrated without a dispensation, he had repeatedly grentel dispensations; and that, atter the dispensation had been graetod, no Roman Catholic prie,t had power to refuse the performance of the rile. Thus the law of the land was hero terain set aside, and these marriages eneouragsd in direct violation of it. Bat with regard to these marriages, which he callsd in cestuous, be held been assure I, ia the meat positive manner by those who p assessed the best intormetion upon the subject, that they were not more numerous than instances of bigaray—an off :ace which he knew from his own experience, both as counsel and as judge, was common in every county in England.w-(Heer, hear.) In no one country in Europe, h owever , was the marr i age tie regarded with such sacredness as in England. In Protestant Germany, he was sorry to say, marriage con- tinued only during convenience, and mein the most frivolous pretext was put en end to. Anti in America they allowed the dissolution of marriage in cases which we in this country would not listen to fur ore moment. Io England we acted upon the sacred injunction that for adultery alone could mar riage be dissolved. The people of America having de parted from that sacred precept, the sanctity of the mar riage life had consequently been very much impaired ; and he trusted, therefore, we should never seek in Berlin or New Orleans•for an example of the institution of do mestic life.—(Hear, hear.) Scotland, he observed, was to be excluded from the operation of the Bill. And why ? Because the people of Scotland, with hardly a single exception, looked upon these unions with abhor rence—(Heat, hear)—and they would have had great ground indeed to complain if an attempt were again to be made to include them within the operation of such a law, because these marriages were in so many words declared by the Confession of Faith to be contrary to God's law, and the Confession of Faith was made part of the law of Scotland by the Act of Parliament which was still in force.—(Hear, hear.) Henceforth, too, if this Bill became law, the marriage of a man with the niece of his deceased wife would be legal. But what were the arguments in favour of the niece becoming the wife of her uncle ? Was she to take care of the children ? Did dying wives recommend their nieces as the future partners of their husbands ? And did nieces, too, make the best step-mothers?—(A laugh.) These were the most plausible arguments that had been brought forward in support of the Bill; but none of them had been applied to the marriage of the niece with her uncle. It had been truly stated in the course of the present debate, that the female sex were mach alarmed upon this subject; and he believed if they were polled throughout the country, ninety-nine out of every hundred of them would petition against the measure; and that purely on account of th© natural delicacy of the female mind, and its intuitive perception of what was just and modest.—(Hear, hear.) It was in open viola tion of the law that these marriages had been contracted —knowingly, willingly, and contumaciously, for it was nothing better, the parties to them had defied the law, and their children were therefore illegitimate; and now Parliament was called upon to say that these marriages were valid. In cases were these marriages had been con tracted ignorantly the Legislature had interfered with prepriety, but never yet had it been proposed to render valid marriages which had been contracted in open vio lation of the law. If ever there were a case which de served commis,eratien, and where there might have been an inclination to render valid a marriage of this sort, it was that which had been decided at their Lord ships' bar. In that case the parties were openly. inno cently, and happily married, under Heaven's sanction, and in the manner recognised by law. A lady of imma culate virtue was led to the altar by a prince of the blood of this country—they believed, and many opinions were given that that was a valid marriage by levy; but ! aEer considerable argument upon the subj!ct the House came to the unanimous determination that the marriage was void. He maintained that the argument that' the proposed measure was one for the Li:flat of the poor was utterly fallacious. It wag rot for the poor, but for the rich. wh,) knew they hal vie!Atei the hlw. th,reforo hepNl that the 3111 :yowl be at once r , , , j , eed by ,tteh t tn,l)rity as would ttike assay all hope u , tho 8111 being ever p,:iserl, The aish , p of LONDON said, that he would not at that lac hour adiresa their L •rdships but that a runa•ur had got abroad that he had changi-d the opinion he had expressed on the same subject 10 years ago, whi n a measure of similar kind was brought forward by the late L'ird \Vh ancliffe. His opinion had undergone a change, but it was to the effect, that though he had then expressed considerable doubt whether those marriages were exp•essly prohibited by the Church. and though he could no• say that his mind w.;.3 pellet:ly made up, and that doubt entirely rernov , d, soil, having considered the subj 'et muco, and road bath sidr a o! the cti. stuns, he hid 1 daunt than fiatnerl , that the ,e marl iages wore prohibited by the law of God. When his Right Rev, Friend had ri fi'rred tf, the interpri Wiwi put by the Jews on the chairer of Leviticus he would beg' to re mind him that they had now no means of ascertaining what were the views or the Jews at the 'irate of our Saviuur as to the prohibition of marriagrs; and that ft, marry centu ries past, he said it with great resi.e .1 fir the J , ws, amongst whim a ere many excellent men, they took their religion in m the Talmud, end not front the able. As to the objection of his Itivolt Rev. Friend, !hat they ought not by thy; it law to offi , ct the marriages it the Jews, he replied to him, that they did no such thing, for that it was the opini,n r.if Lord Stowell that their ecclesias tical cou is had nothing to do with the marriages of the Jews. He reminded their Lordships of what - had hap pened in 1792 in France when the law of marriage was altered. It was followed by great immorality, and the state of France at present was not such as to induce them to lo:sen the bonds of marriage. Many marriages had taken place in d': fiance of the law. Of this there could be no doubt, but the remedy was not to relax the law, but to promote education and amid more clergy amongst the people, and thus inculcate lessons of mora lity and a due obedience to the law. He believed this relaxation was sought for in the large manufacturing towns, and not iu the rural districts, where there never had occurred but one instance of these prohibited mar riages, and that was in North Essex. He concluded by referring to a petition from females against these mar. riages.presented to the House of Corr awns, and declared that the feelings of females were intensely opposed to such marriages. Lord BROUGHAM deemed it to be superflous to address their Lordships at that hour. Upon the Scrip tural view of this subj , -ct he ventured to give no opini,n, particularly as he found a discrepancy to exist amongst the Right Rev. Prelates; but as to arguments of a social description, he conceived they were more strongly against such marriages than against those mentioned in Scripture, that is, with a deceased brother's wife. By the law of 1835—Lord Lypidhurst's law—a great and glorious defect was cored; for it put an end to a most absurd state of the law, by which marriages were said to be voidable, but said not to be void until the sentence of a court had so pronounced them, although they were, in fact, void ab initio.—(Bear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord c , included by expressing a hope that the discussion whch had taken place would have. a most beneficial effect. The Earl of ESSEX was understood to ask the Noble Earl (St. G , rmans) whether, during this inquiry he had heard of any case of a sister marrying her brother ? Trio Earl of Sr. GERMANS said that the only ques tion which they had to consider then was, whether the law should not be changed, so far as it declar,cl illegal the marriage of a man with his deceased wile's sister. The Bishop of OSSORY next addressed their Lord ships; but spoke in so low a tone as to render it impos sible for us to give even an outline of his arguments. We understood him to say he thought that the neeessery effect of such a measure as this passing into a law woual be to endanger the morals of the country. That un suspected, trosusptcious, and warm intercourse that so generally existed between G. e wile and her sisters would altoge her cease it this Bill were passed, He hal always thought that the relationship which existed between such parties was one of the happiest features of our social system. As Christian legislators they were bound to consider what was said on the subject. in the Word of God. On this subject Scriptural authority was dsmaneed from those who were desirous of maintaintme the exist ing law. That challenge could not be answered without reverting to controversial topics. He was of opinion that there was to be found in the Word of God direct autho rity for the restrictions which existed in our law. It was said that a min was made one with his wife—he was therefore made the brother of her sister. The sense of the manmamiments was not to be confined within the literal cords of them, but was to be extended to a class of actions of which the one forbidden might be deemed the st mbol. Slavery had very generally ex isted before Christianity. It was, however, considered that Christianity had performed its proper office by , discouraging end abolishing it; and yet in the Scrip tures there was not to be found a single precept against slavery. The Right Rev. Prelate was understood to oppose the Bill. The Earl of ST. GERMANS replied, and in retard to some references which bad been made to Prussia, quoted the following passage from the letter of Dr. Helwig, Professor of the Philosophy of Law at the University of Berlin, addressed to Privy Councillor Dieterici—" President Strampf remarked that he was not aware of there being a single case of affinity marriage among all the classes in which a divorce was requested during his office in the department of the Royal Court of Judicature. He knows himself several unions of that kind among his particular friends' trod acquaintance. None of thc.e cen he call a bad or unhappy marriage; they rather are, as fer as he knows, really happy, rind indeed some are truly models." There might evils attributable to the facility of obtaining eavorcee, but that aas a different thing trem a facility of contracting marriage.—(flear, hear.) Reterence had also been made to the Greek Church; but a communion which prohibited marriages to the SiT.ql or seventh degree, could hardly be held up as an example. In Rus'ia, which had been mentioned, these marriages. it between persons not be longing to the Greek Church, would he held valid; the law was merely ecclesiastical, affecting the members of that communion. As to the remark that the proposed Bill woul A affect the canons of the Church, it might be asked, in reply, whether the Act of 1835 did not do so? and whether Right Rev. Prelates were not, nevertheless, parties to passing it?—(Elear.) The clergymen of son-de of the largest parishes in the metropolis and the coun try, iccluding the Rev. Dr. Hook, the vicar of Leeds, had expressed their opinion that it was most desirable for the comfort, especially of the poor man, and for the wel fare of his family, that a measure of this nature should be adopted. He thought the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Campbell), in referring to soma of the legal cases which had been quoted, had taken a view of them which was calculated to produce an erroneous impression. He (Earl St. Germans) had, however, the satisfaction of stating that he had received a note from Lord Denman. who was unable to attend, expressing his wish and desire to vote in taveur of the Bill. Although that Noble and Learned Lord felt bound to administer the law as he found it, he considered that a change was desirable, and he (the Earl of St. Germane) thought the opinion of the Noble Lord would net he without its iefluotice upon the House. Fortified in his views by these authorities, and by the opinions which had been expressed in that House, ho did not think he was showing any disrevpect to the authority of she Church in persevering with the Bill. Tiieir Lordships then divided, a hen there appeared, — C intent ,„ 16 Nit content TheTh ,Majority Hß oi Bill eo 3,veats eg dic,:iui e t ,e h ttr e lay seend reading... —34 lost. e rued to Friday Qaarter-pait Twelve o'clock ASSIZE' INTELLIGENCE. NORTHP,RN ClRCUlT.—Carlisle. Feb. 24. The commission for holding the uszliz s for this county was opened here on Swurdey. Their Lordships st at ten o'clock this morning. On this oec tsion the usual cavalcade of the Sheriff presented a different aspect to that which it ordinarily assumes, the present Sheriff, Mr. George Head Hrarl (being a member of the Society of Friends), having seb stituted for the ordinary javelins with which the sheriff's: men are wont to awe the laity, keep the county's peace, and protect the persons of my Lords the Judges, poles with silvered knobs on the top of them. Probably jave lins look too warlike for men of peace to sanction. The weapons substituted for them certainly had the eff , ct of changing the processional pantomime by which my Lords the Judges strike awe into the vulgar mind on their way to the courts to execute justice ano administer the laws; but if required, they would be quite as effectual for a punch on the head as the javelins would be for a poke in the ribs, and thus the county peace was peacefully kept without the fracture of any conscientious scruples. The calendar of prisoners is light. It contains a charge against a woman of murdering her infant, and another charge against another woman of attempting to murder her child. There is a charge of rape, and a charge of cutting and stabbing. The rest are ordinary larcenies. In all there are 26 prisoners. The cause list contains an entry of six causes, ono of which, an action for false imprisonment, marked for a special jury, is fixed for to-mor row . CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.) Henry Twaddle was charged on an indictment, found at the last assizes, with wilful and corrupt perjury before the justices sitting at quarter sessions at Carlisle, in Ja nuary, 1850. Mr. James anti Mr. Bailey prosecuted; Mr. Overend and Mr. Campbell Foster defended the prisoner. It appeared that a brother of the prisoner, Joseph Tweddle, bad had a child fathered upon him by one Jane Davis before the magistrates sitting in petty ses sions at Brampton, in November, 1849, which he was then ordered to support. Against that order Joseph Tweddle appealed to the quarter sessions, held at Car lisle, in January, 1850; and, on that occasion, the pri soner, Henry Twaddle, was examined as a witness on the part of his brother. Jane Davis, who at that time was in the service of a farmer at Lincoln, named Ander son, having sworn that the child w"s begotten on the night of the 14th of October, 1848, the prisoner swore that on that night his brother was at a farm called Crook•farm, with a girl named Jane Story, the servant there, and that " be knew he was there," and threw stones on the:roof of the . house to attract the f ar . mar's attention, and put a stick against the door. Fur ther to damage the credibility of Jat.o Davis, he thin swore that he bad blin•Jelf been on t rms of impi of er familiarity with her on the 26th or 27th of that Ocioi er. For the prosecution Jatie Davis was called. who swore that Joseph Tweddle was with her en the night of the 14th Of October, that he came there with two persons, named Giiiiiiiellovv a d Forster, and 'hat they tett him there. Fier s•i:.ter else swot.- she ivr Joseph Twedd e that night, end corrouorated this sta•ement that it was the 14 , h of October. Jane Davis also swore sbe had never been on terms of improper intimacy with the pri soner. Fur the defence, witnesses were called who proved that the night Joseph Tweddle was at Ander ---- son's farm with Forster and Goodfellow was the 21st 0 Ocrolie , ., at.td Jane Story swore that she remEmber(d 'arint• s , nr . s•on,s thrown on the roof of . 4 1 cr l''. ro,stt.r s house one night, in October, when joseph l'wedtile was with her, and that night was the 14 t 12 o O u tober; she kncw it because she had been talkirg that night with her sister about its bei n g exactly a mouth before iNlirtinm as. It was also shown that the prisoner had visited Jlne Davis on two occasion s, on one o f which he sat with her till half-past one in the morning', And m remained some time sine with her before be left. This, the L. arned Counsel for the defence suggested,nst would the have been strongly corroborati ve evidence agai prisoner had she chosen to father the child upon bin', and it east qtrilly strongly corro borative of the probable truth of the awful-tit that lie bad h al improper rnacy with 11 , ,r on lbw occa.ion. His LonDSHIP care;olly summed rip the whole facts to the jury, tehing them that they must be satisfied not Only ill:a the prisoner start d that which wai false , but fo that he knew it to be fahe at the time, in order to Jury, titer find hint guiltv ; o.hertvis,., they must acquit him. Thu • - of Not Guilty. The tr;al et' this cast , occupied nearly the whole dal. a short absence, returned with a verdict In the Ni:-j Pius Court the only case tried was dally uninteretipg. SHIP NE WS. I, LivERPOOL, FEB. 25.—Wind E.S.E.--loconslent .(31'CU, has arrived at Milford for Rio Grande; Elise Ann, from Aberavon, has arrived at Holyhead tor this port with damatze. Arrd. Jane Bird, from Consmati -11,-,P1,; Louis Philipp. from ameo; Commodore, from Havre; Count Alexander Bramiski, from Odessa; f ro m f tße ro ontn : ti. l -" !ye i ; : d ia ff o y r oc i l ; mast S t,sl y e : f e fr r r :d z a, p f a r t o s m g, les; Rouen; Charlotte, from Antwerp; Minerva. from ° I. il o r h i cl 'd n g g e ' l terrb : f e l.:l bon; Premier, ' from Palermo. Slit. Robert Parker, for Savannah; Edward O'Brien, for New Yorki D" ve 'li vannah; Petra, for Bilo Sing apore ; il Rio Janeiro; Thomas Fielden, for Calcutta; Cleuti's' for Naples; Forest State, for Boston; Montrose, M . mil. Primrose. . for a; —cella uee • Orleans, GRAVESEND, FEB. 25.—Wind E. , light, fine. Arrived—Willtana Crow, from St. Oslo; J o seph 4 5 1 1 1 Ann, from Ostend; Kingston, from Antwr Thqeis: from tr Struer; Gonvorlo steam-frigate, from SerdiL: from Krugeroa ; Vriendsclap , ate ' rd ‘u it n m a' t ra' .or Sailed—Mary Welch, for Genoa; Barbara, ,(31. • 5 1 , I__ i im .. h o ; , Azorian, Acis , and London Packet, for m , ael s; Emerald, for Boulogne. NM AJo SEA [N signifies that the nt by night—and Ai by PLACES. America (by Brit. pkt.) N America (by U. s. pltt.) N, America (by U S. pkt.) M Atrica ( West coast).• N Alexandria• . ....... N Belgium •. .• N Brazil .. . M Buenos Ayres M C alifornia( vi a Ch agres) M Cape of Good Hope 2: Constantinople* .. •• N Central America .. Channel Lies N' Chili .. .. •MI BORNE MAIL S. Gener 4ll Lils are cent front the al 7°4 . the morning—dispatch.] hen made up ail General Post-office, London. r a wbitt ,e I port die patched' V, llo° 4110* °L SSFL I )D S I 0 17:a u uuuuY vv ewen't Doverhtttht t tee ee br Irr rr lP:l ..II • Marcgar ch 1 2 h b )fetchyeD• ,A Feb og Feb. red marc.- m a rch • Arri ved gi Arrived ~vi,,,d2111/ march 60' V ei. rrbar soil. Arri s n d a i, ZWc s ell gsr 3 111,1A41 London •• Loudon •• 'Soutliamp t. Iliolyhead tsouthsraP. Dover " l yor cli 28 ! soathar opt• Mar c „ ll Marc" Dian. " 'gar° 211Arc li March 5 Ar l 2 a d woad !Dover 'Southall:lp • sou thamPt• Doper Dover • • Dover • • st S oo o cuti u vait t eh l r i araluu an i pp p .tt. .t.• Southanapt. Igarch n 5 'ed (*) Are coveyei by February 28.. • • March 7 .. .. March 8 .• •• 'l4th of the month 19th & 30th of mo. Daily • • .. ..1 1 9th of the month 9th of the month 17th of month 14th of month 7th 17th 27th of ino I id & 17th of mon. Mon., Wed., & 117th of the month France M & N Twice daily .. • • Greece* • • .. • • N 7th 17th27thefmo Hamburgh N Tuesday & Friday Holland .. • • .. 'Wednes. & 6atur. Honduras . N 17th of the mouth Ireland .. •.M & N Twice daily •-• ••1 India (via South amp.) M 20th of the month India (via Marseilles) N,7thrx 24th of month Mediterranean (via Southampton) .. M 20th of the month editerranean (via Marseilles) N 7th& 24th ofnionth Mexico .. M2d of the month..l Madeira 9th of the month c 70,17th,19th, 4 th L & 3oth of month •• •• lti sth 15th 25th °lino Malta. Naples* .. Papal states* N sth 15th 25th ofmo Peninsular.. M 7th 17t1127thot mo, Peru .. .. • • .. M 17th of the month uscany* .; N silll 7th th of mo West troiies M 17th of the month West Indies (except Havanna. & Nassau) 31 2d of the month • • 1 . The mails to those countries thus marl French packs Marseilles --------------- yr s. THE COUNTRY MAg-1(.6 IPSWICH, FEB ` ,5 • et this 641 ' We had an unusually thin attendance at mar __ On di v gly and the supplies of both wheat and barley were co,r e r_e a l ac i d ors small. The wheat trade was heavy, but the sal 3 ,_",'. m ice , • at about is per qr. reduction. Barley firna at la , " Beans and peas maintaine,, l as t week's rates . ran ,ohaTsa' i., to PER QUARTER. .... 271 00s Wheat, red Ditto, white. 4lls to 46s Oats .............. ~,,, 10 0 0 Barley, malting Ditto, grinding to, 00 1 26s to 28s Beans ..Flour, per SaCk .2M, OW. AVERAGES FOR. THE WILEX ENDING r 53 : 3 9 5 6d Wheat Barley 1,725 ,' , 21 od Oats ........ —. ... . 47 ,s "" 5 6d ~ Beans Peas HULL, FEB. 25. Arrivals °I Messrs. Taylor and Bright's Circular states ~ is all descriptions of grain continue moderate ; the 1% - o arllet mild, and the trade slow and inactive. For this daY . l d ne e we had a large supply of farmers' wheat, a moderate atter:a/err of bu) ors, and but little business done. We do not, h ° o ,ins alter our quotations for good conditioned ruins ; inferior , re ere s ay quite neglected. In no description of spring corn i Whe mild alteration. Only a limited business in linseed , an " the eithe se,ison checks the sale of cakes. No fresh ar rivals ° rapeseed cr cakes. The following are the present prices of grain: — s• a. so 8. 8. Wheat, English, red 35 to 38 Peas, white and 943.1 24 1 q 6 Do. white 4O 42;D0. grey • ......... ' 4 8 ..... Dantzic and Igo- Linseed.l Black Sea. 42 _ 4B , . .'"" .. nigsberg 42 461D0. Petersburgn ... • _. ..., e Pomeranian and Halal-nth . 37 —4O D D Danish, Holstein, & 71 . 105 to Friesland 34 371Lins.c,Hu11 7 ... 61? .. onigsberg • ..• li d 00 Russian and Odessa 34 —3B Do. fine foreign •;/ to 51 1,1 Oats, English ,15 19' Do. inf. foreign... . 71 0 i Do. Vanish to ov - 0 01 Do. Friesland o o . . Iliga & Archngl: ,: ...., 42 1614 -- 1186,1Rlaappeesceaekdes......8•5—; ... c. 1. 0" 5 4 ' 3 r.a . . . . . : s Do. Russ. & Odessa 14 16ITares, English • ... ‘ , 3 ,...- 5 °,, Barley,malting 2t —26 Do. foreign .......... . 4 ,.„ iply: Do. grinding 2O 21;Guano .............. , , s p: r e 005% Beans 25 28'Bon es, do ...... 97bt" 61 v .. Do.. foreign 2 C 5 0 - 11K 2i- , IR F ris . M 2 e 4 a . l ............... cor ene9; o o Barrels. 0 White wheat Ors ,Od to 00s Od ee s Z - 2 ° 2 49 d o 38 Red wheat l6s 9d to 183 9tl 135 " d „.16 105 Barley ti Bere ...... Os Od to Os Od e s 4 u" Od 364 Oats 39 Pigs - Quantity sold at the Highest Prices: _. ea' 0 be r " 0 barrels white wheat; 3 red; 19 barley; 18 pigs. wo k Quantity or Grain and Number of Pigs sold III ; bif nd ; Wheat. 149. Barley, 523. Oats, w,99 0 . 14 13" gs o cta vo, 7 , to CORK.-1 4 1 ,, ur Finn 1 6d to 12s 6d; seconds, 10+6d to Ils 6d; household , 94 to 100 ,h 1; tig,„d; h est' per cwt. Oatmeal los to lOs 6d; Indian meal 7s tie s ( , ) 7110' meal. los to 1036dper cwt. Indian corn 71 bs ()" "io, j ; are r 7o con. Bran 92a 6d to 95s per ton. Hay—Farmers 3 2, ~,..Farss i l d; ; dealers 40e to 48, Od; average 4 tis per ton. S o l . to 33! ; Od to As 0,1; average :8s; ,lealers ... e f bid ; D A to average 001 Od per ton. Bread—Wheaten irl! e r, household loaf 41d to 5d per 41b. Fresh dam' C edi ew 12J per lb. Eggs -4e 6d to 4s 8d per b tu '. /treads ' ..- tft. , - .43-vuort 163 Od; Lydne) 17s ; Landore 14 ' 'AR. per 1t 13* 6d per ton. T a ll ow 37 , od to s t o 9 WLisk t 25 °' P 5 sa per imperia l g%eiti P e , lb. —Bee 4id to Bid ; mutton - 5d to 7d; o r scl; pork 4d to Od ; bas 7d to 8d ; saeosg e l t o 3 1 °'_„` flops 6110 s to 0/ Os per cw ' t. Bangor "'sites SI?: tool; Fr on t , 6/ Os r s rk p — an ß ish ar (b)iarpyer7itoOni.to FleeceB/Os; Vaionis lb/ 15, Pe r w o ol 141 to a , to Pi o f Hemp 321 to 34/ per ton. Fish— Scotch herrings , 1/ le s ditto, 24, to 003 per bar rel ; Newfoundland., 10310;d4740....011s ton. Timber —Memel 803 per ton ; red Pi ne ' ;O. ' l 4O ditto, 2/ 15s per ton ; deals, 12s to 15s ri P g e r owt ; oel t i o nor Market 22s to 325. salted '233 w 82° r o 10d; 1 "gill 3id to 30 per lb Potatoes, white 7 d t b o o, 81 1° lOd to 13d. Guano— Peruvian, 11/ 10s: Icha per tor. Tar— A reh angel, 19s per harry. t An a Ointireo and [ADVERTISEMENT.] -- HOI IO W a Y 8 Leg 4 Pills an Excellent Remedy for Old Wounds, r ;;, r W the Scrofula. —Mr. Turner, of Penshurst, l OW suffe e re e Vrectioe from to a dreadful sore leg, causing the diseased part l' oi .butie tie tr ied foot the and a severe i c k g. A' ep do• which spread over the whole surface of t e lle al • or e l • p g every available remedy without being able t or nena' f the least good whatever to it. At length be e i doe o° 0 illy IL noway's Ointment and Pills, and, to the aston his leg peels, self and others who had seen the dreadful staT ou t fife ob' these fi ne medicines e ff ected a sound cure in su„ ovis y's —Sold by all druggists, and at Professor de' lishment, 244, strand, London. ny 1 06 Of The General S earn Navigation CoroP ti iii a bonus Glared a dividend at the rate of 10 per cent., Iv' 6d. per share. BIRTHS. d e r , Dot' OF A BON. vii • rio On the 22d inst., the wife of the Rev. S. I" - t . Glotic er ton Fleming, Barnstaple. On the 2 d inst., the lady of 11. D. Blyth , ' l ' 4 ' tohl ter-place, Portman-square. •ef of C $ P v ri On 'anti4ry 7, at Philadelphia, - U.S., the S. H. Palairet. the LI OF A DAG IS TSB, aq ua On the 24th inst., in Wilmot-street , Brun sW ick A wife of C. W. Cattell, Esq. Johl l On the 24th inst ., in Nl7. oburn-squar e, the wife o. Williams, Esq. MARAIS°, he IPP II On the 20th inst., at Dover, Colonel Tylden, of t fleorf Engineers, to Mary, widow of the late CaP taili Baldwin. ter, fir. On the '2 Oth inst. , at St. Petrock's Church, .. - . 4te r o f the George Gibbs, of Brstol, to Emma, second dale"' late INlr. W. C. Pollard, of Exeter. "h ° AI dcaouo o l,:n n tilil t r h , e E r q t I] , o inst., n at fl e A t. d n . n nearfiel4 Stirling, b 0° 144 11. t t l e i r e 0 2 t 3d n in B st . . p , ainllisGerr,osEvseqn.or-street, Elizabet J obe Lee' On the 23d inst., at , Grove-villas, Camberwell, Esq., of the Filing Ghymical Works, , ateshe, cL , Anon t he On January . 24. at Philadelphia, - U.S., illarJ wife of Captain S. 1.1. Palairet. v.,/ ' b P D On the 23 i inst., at Canterbury-place, v. alwort . „ v i. Taylor, eldest daughter of James Taylor, late of al e Ijv stream Guards. Sargon. P f t h e E 2 s ci 3d , jest., s t ii , a o ll l l p r t s t . m; Sarah near ll Sargon, o ol,tiv r e . 1i c t of tbe la te G. uaster' On the :nth inst., Mr. William Taylor,' f pore.— jun., 0 terrace, Bayswater, aged 41. London: Printed and Pub Haired by 1111.1RDO TOYIN, No. 112, Strand, Printer , at The Sun Office, •'‘").t.i ft Strand. in Pr.etnet of the Savoy , in the CotiS Middlesex, WedgesdAy, February 20,1851. i i 1