The Express.
London, England, 1855-05-10 00:00:00

lA!' EVENING, MAY 10, 1855.

duos a asa into mistime to it. Ha esacieded by
iesthatom it was net possible to sake psiople epee fa
on this question, we set of religious opiates,
net I. wade the groan& of sack a law
SW then was seeking in seri"» *Oast reek
swooviageet and as regarded the questioa of expediaacy,
tufts reistien to the dwelling of a wife's sister to the bones
of ha ketkewia-law, it was starting rather a dangerous
dowriea liselag, then, shot the legislature, twenty years
ego. bed i• Nos hostess= Rade marriages of this kind
oilid,trbwAsetowlimil did tiwy would take this yoke off
tbsilr wad Mowery man act according to his
ssaattlaM tr= making particular convictions aom-

iMt GLADSTONE said his boa. and learned friend who
llisithadj:stusai:adoews"elhadia.eion. eluded with the enunciation of a
prise:4ls in which be quit* agreed, that one set of men
wee nein maks their cenvietions compulsory upon others.
Bet the whole question now was whether his honourable
Mead and those who thought with him were not
stespieg the marriage law es it now existed with
peculiar convictions, and were they such as should point
out the path in which it was desirable to proceed. His hon.
and learned friend (Mr. Palmer) had shown that the princi-
ples which had been laid down, and the arguments whisk
red been used in favour of this bill, if they were good ter
tim
ythiag, were good hr infinitely more than the purpose
for which they were now need. His hen. and learned friend
had shown that there was not an argument used in this
matter which was not also applicable to the allowieg d
polygamy ; and his hon. and learned friend ((mfr Lowe)
only replied by asserting that his hon. friend (Mr. Palmer)
bad entered on dangerene ground, and brought fise-
ward topics that had been better avoided. But thee
IPSO the very objection to this bill and the arguments
p
mod in its favour; for all those arguments, founded on the
uesepts of the divine law, which had been aced as conch.'
in favour of this bill, had been shown to have been
' equally good for the purpose of polygamy. After what had
beat so ably and effectively urged by his hon. and learned
friend (Mr. Palmer) be was almost ashamed to think it
necessary to argue that the prohibition of these marriage,
was founded on the law of God ; but what he hoped the
home would recollect was this, that they were not reseed,
in dealing with a law which lay at the very foundation ef
society and of morale, to such slender means of finding out
the truth as the employment only of their own understanding
of the texts of Scripture which related to the question.
He was astonished to hear the opinions of geatlemen '
who had read the 18th chapter of Leviticus, not in the
meaner in which his hoe, and learned friend the Attorney-
General said he had read it, for he stated that he had read
not the whole chapter, but the llth verse, and that only
in the translation, and who upon that had come to the com-
fortable oonvictioe that the verse not only did not prohibit,
but allowed marriage with a deemed wife's sister.
(" Hear," and laughter.) He (Mr. Gladstone) maintained
that the question did not depend merely on the 18th verse
of the 18th chapter of Leviticus; and be warned those who
depended on that argument alone whether they might not
be called on and bound to admits that the same arguments
were good for the allowing of polygamy. The cue as laid
down in the chapter of Leviticus was clear. It was not on a
particular instance, or even on analogy, that the prohibition
in this verse was founded, but it was founded on a
universal prohibition contained in the beginning of the
chapter, which prohibited marriages between those who '
were near akin; and the question turned on those words ;
and if their meaning was sought is the rest of the chapter, it I
was clearly demonstrable that a wife's sister was near akin.
His hon. and learned friend (Ur. Lows) protested against the
making this precept binding on every one, and was willing to
trust the decision of the matter to every man's conscience ; I
but the chapter was conclusive as to the prohibition, for it
declared that the Canaanite had done all those things, and
because they had done so they were driven out of the land,
therefore the Israelites were warned against the commission
of such deeds. Was he, then, to be told that a prohibition
was intended only for the Jean, and that Christians
might be allowed to indulge in practices for which the
heathen had been driven out of their land ? (Hear, hear.)
It was therefore a universal prohibition and by no means
confined to the Jews. His hon. friend said the light of con-
science was a sufficient guide in this matter. Did he mean
the general and collective conscience of mankind, or the
private conscience of each individual ? If he meant the
private conscience of each individual, his hon. friend must
see that that argument against legislation in such a matter
was good against all legislation in matters ecclesiastical.
Why were they to legislate in matters ccelesiaatical at all,
if each man carried in his own breast a safe guide which he
and his neighbours might follow? If hie hen. friend meant
the collective conscience of mankind, that was his (Mr.Glad-
'tom's) ease ; for be said that the law as it now stood
represented amost the whole collective conscience of man-
kind. In the best pert of the Christian era, sad for the
first fifteen centuries, these marriages were not allowed, and
they began in the infamous times of Alexander VI. What
had been the cue with mud to them in the last 300 years ?
He saw that it was sated in a document which had been
circulated that there was no nation, with the exception of
three and a half of the cantons of 8 witserland, in which
those marriages had been prohibited ; but he was prepared
to show that in the greatest part of eastern Christendom the
prohibition was in full force. And what was thecae with
regard to wes•em Christendom, and that part of it which.
was under the dominion of the see of Rome ? If
such marriage were permitted there, they were permitted
only as exceptions, and such exceptions stamped the
existence of the general law ; and they were also excepted
at the same time with UM which even those who were in
favour of this bill admitted touched on incest and con-
sanguinity. Every one knew—and he wished to speak with-
out giving the least offence to that portion of the house
who belonged to the Roman catholic faith—that these
matters were regulated by the Banish See on grounds of
policy, and it was never bat on strong grounds of policy
that such marriages were allowed. Why were such mar-
liars not prevalent I. Ireland? Because the Romish
See, in its anxiety for the avoidance of mixed mar-
riages there, had not permitted them, whereas
in England, where no such watchfulness with regard
to mixed marriages was.deemed necessary, such
license was allowed. With respect to the question
of this prohibition being founded on the divine law, there
was something better to proceed upon than individual tea-
vicdons founded on a text of Scripture translated from the
Hebrew. He thought himself that the matter was made
dear from Scripture, and if it was a matter of &alit it was
only so in the sense in which it was any man's interest to
make it doubtful. (Hear, hear.) But looking to the prin.
Sipe which bad been incorporated into our common law,
however it might be thought light of by those who desired
to obtain the license, if the private opinion of it was open to
be Inestimed, it was equally open to everyone to question
ell OM Ohrhtisaity bad done for the world, and which bad
beimintroduced into our institutions and incorporated with
outlaw; and all that might be made of no avail, in deference
to the doubts of some members of the community.
His hon. friend (Mr. Lowe) said that he regarded this as a
question of religious liberty, and that those who were
sowed to him were not entitled: to force their own envie,
*me es other people by means of a law. But was this a
Inseam of religions liberty ? And Hit wawa not the time
INN when there should be an understaadiog as to what was
meant by religious liberty ? What he thought was religious
liberty was this, that there might be many things which he
might thiak to be asseediug to the law, but which he would
net ay should be farad on his neighbours by legislative enact-
ment. A large body of persons in this country of the highest
tespeetability and morals did not reeogoise baptism as a
seseasamth while there was • great majority who
believed baptism a necessity of Christianity, bat
tothey would not compel each dissidents to the doctrine
to baptised, although they reheat to allow them to parti-
cdpato in the Devices and ordinances of the church. But were
they mow deaths/ with persons of a particular creed, who
said that they ob maid to a proldhities.figainst marrying a
deemed wife's sister ? It was net a *slime body of men
who required such liberty ef conesisses I bet the proposition
was to establish anarchy in the skulk of aad. It was
net to relieve a slam Whet aro& eismis religious
seraphs, but it waste lay *at is Medd be optienal with
members and clergymen of to aura of Illighed to con-
trast and celebrate or not the marriages moseding to their
oezolinions. Was that a question of religions liberty ; and
w nettle result, as swerved the char* of England,
Z Ibtatiasbey the vote of that blue every principle and every
et the chunk WOW be altered or done away with
=dm dm ppelent of relishes liberty ? (Hear, hear.) The
, eithiest night be illustrated by an expression used in a
letter by Lady Mary Wortley Montague, who in desegibing
I the laxity with regard to religion which prevailed at that
time among the laity and the earn said, ' that they took
the word not out of the Commandments and inserted it in
the Belief " (Laughter.) It might be said that It was
putting an extreme ease, hat It illustrated his argument to
say that clergymen might, under such legislation
heart the word not in the Creed, or not read
the Creed at all, as they pleased. Why did
we read the Creed, but because we believed it contained
le mouniy truths of Christianity ' • and why did we have
No be es it now stood with regard to these marriages, but
Menu we believed that it was a part of the immutable
Divine law 1 If, therefore, the principle of laxity was laid
down with regard to one point, which was based on the
Divine law the sem principle held good for abolishing
every law relating to the ordinances of the church of Eng-
land. (Hear, hear.) His hon. and learned friend, in an
early part of lie debate on this question, in a most eloquent
and effective speech, had referred to the subject of the
1 social change implied in this bill, and adverted
to the feelings of Englishwomen on this matter.
He felt that the feelings of Englishwomen were
dame to the change, and be tried the effect
of his eloquence upon them. He said that English-
women were opposed to this change, but they looked at it
only with releases to their duty as wives ; but they would
think differently if they looked at it with referees to their
'statism as mothers, to the children they might leave behind
, them. He (Mr. Gladaeone) had listened with rapist and
1 attentim, se he alms did to whatever MI hem his himaad
learned friend. bat whoa be recovered hem Ike Muslim into
aid* be had bees Yarded by his hen. andlearned frieed's
elegises% end essideeed the West of the teeters of
to Allersey-Gomel et /Inks' mom ilosaes ash the Rouse
el Omemens tolloglbliwasais en lb* ae wives
sod thelletent—Oanghlite /Ma vas what at first was
se teething wawa almost es She Millonses. (Laughter.)
FM elm* the AtasempOsneml el IV told Runtish-
imam while teasbMg
with
their MK dISSIOS. V
alma se essformable with lindens* and memo see
AS
if the
women of Becks& 'Weld send messages M that house,
vibes lbey lien ismiiiiihrg a measure with regard to bills
of embmge, sr Imbues imps, in order to show itts
Mole bow to plasm he amiss. (Laughter.) Our M-
atra be thengft he is entitled to make on his
Ism blend the member he Lanseeltin, sad those who
sigeortsl his. They Imbed Iles Ibis bill, sad

they spoke of the impropriety of MOON; tai
oa this gustiest, and of the issagedlemey of
the law as it now stud ; but ea' thins* ema afghtralliti
dose, or attempted* do, and that was he Ogg Mgt
slur and definite priaMPle on which they miseesa. a
irmstos4* which should be so stated that it Amid bit M.
seemly why this measure was asked (for Ming *wry
owe knew), bat now, if it was granted, matters would shad
with regard to mutilate which were now thought nee*
easy. Generally speeking, it was not proper to ask how
by it was intended that proposed changes should go ; bat
supposing a bill was introduced deel.ring that ao earl
should theitesfor* alt in the House of Peas, there
would be • right to ask what was to be done
with marquises, viscounts, and barons. If in 1829
it had bun proposed to emancipate the catholic
of Munster, it would not have been unreasonable to ask what
was to be done with thole of Leinster and Connaught. If
you *seed this bill now, what was that of nest year to be ?
(Hear.) The prohibition of marriages went to two points
—first, as regarded affinity aad consanguinity there was a
prohibition ; and secondly, that prohibition as to affinity
and consanguinity was c d into the third degree, and
that was dens as a uniform rule. Now his hon. friend ttio
member for Lancashire made an arbitrary selection of two
cases out of 30—(hear)—and left the other 28 till au*
time se, having recovered his at first satisfied appetite
for change, he returns to the charge. (Hear, hear) Wen,'
therefore, the other prohibitions safe ? (Hear, hear.)'
More ought to be known. This was not a question of
raising the income tax this year to 7 per cent., and next
year to 8 per cent., and after that to 10 per cent., or some-
thing still higher • but • question relating to one of those
social results which mankind owed to Christianity—the
equality between men and women in relation to marriage.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman was the first to meddle
with that equality. He proposed to allow an uncle to marry
the niece of his deceased wife, but he left the case
of a woman untouched, for he did not propose to
allow an aunt to marry her deceased husband's'
nephew. (Hear, hear.) When was woman raised to as
equality with man in respect to marriage until the este-
blishourat of Christianity (hear, bear)—to a pert. et and
absolute equality so far as the marriage tie was concerned)
His hon. foie* proposed to change that great fundamental
law, and he (Mr. Gladstone) had a right to ask bow far he
meant to go, and whether we were to have one code regu-
lating the marriage of men, and another regulating that of
women. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend proposed to legalise
marriages in certain cases of affinity in the second degree,
and yet he left a prohibition on the same affinity in the third
degree. His hon. and learned friend (Mr. Lowe) held an-
other opinion, for he drew a distinction between affinity
and consanguinity, and was ready to throw affinity
overboard altogether; while some gentlemea told them
affinity was one thing and some another. All that pointed
to vague changes dependent only on agitation and a cer-
tain licence of opinion, but which threatened to shake, and
even to subvert the system of restraint on marriages, which
was one of the principal results of the coming of the
Gospel among men. (Hear, hear.) This question did not
even stand on the ground of pipularity. Even if it were
an argument for destroying the system to show that one sort
of marriages was more prevalent than another, he did
not think that it could be satisfactory to the country at
large. Bet his hon. friend did not even go ea!
that ground, for he legalised marriages with a '
de-
ceased wife's niece, which were not numerous. He!
(Mr. Gladstone) bad seen the result of an inquiry in •
district containing a population of • million, in which it ap-
peared there wets 326 irregular marriages; cf these
there were with a deceased wife's sister 144; then there
were 76 bigamists; next there were with a deceased bro- ,
ther's wife, 46 ; nest with nieces by blood, 24 ; and with a
deceased wife's niece there were only 17 cases. (Hear,
hear.) On what principle, then, had his hon. friend'
selected them for legislation ? (Hear, hear.) We had now
a definite system on a matter with regard to which it was*
desirable and so necessary to social peace to have tome pro
hibitions, and he asked his hon. friend where he meant b
stop ? When his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Lows)l
spoke of the collective conscience of mankind as being
a sufficient guide, that alone was an argument in
favour of legislation on the subject. He (Mr. Gladstone)
would not say one word against that light of conscience'
which indicated the voice of God in those who were not
blest with revelation ; but were they who had realised the
results of Christianity to be asked to go back from Chris-
tianity to conscience ? (Hear, _ hear.) That which we
sometimes Galled conscience and the instincts of hunt*
nature were in no two ages understood in the same sense ;
and if we were asked to consent to go back from the level
of Christianity to the standard of conscience, he not only
asked where we were to stop, but he would say
that he would not adopt an inferior standard of
duty whet we had obtained and enjoyed a superior
one, which was incorporated in our law, divine revelation.
(Hear, bear.) And it was because he saw that this measure
was part of a system of aggression on all which the Christian
religion had brought on mankind, even at the risk of new
ing to stand in opposition to religion liberty, he would say
"No" to the proposition of his hon. friend. (Cheers.)
Mr. SPOONER adverted to the difficulty he had to en-
counter in following Mr. Gladstone, but declared he mane
to go as far as his conscientious opinion and interpreta-
tion of Scripture allowed him, but no further.
The best conclusion that he could arrive at was that the
marriage with a deceased wife's sister was not only not
prohibited, but was actually permitted by the law of God.
Mr. COBDEN said-1 hose who were is favour of the
bill had found their logical sense so much outraged by the.
splendid fallacies of the right hon. gentleman the member
for Oxford, that although it had not been his intention to
have said a word on this subject, he could not abstain from
offering a word or two, strictly on the remarks of the right
hon. gentleman. He had heard before he came down to-
day that they were not to have, as had been the custom in
past years, a repetition of the old arguments, but
that they were to have a novelty in the debate,
and that some statistics were to be quoted to
show that the law of bigamy was violated in this
country, as well as the law of marriage with • deceased wife's
sister, and that therefore it was to be contended they might
as well sanction bigamy as marriage with a deceased wile's
sister. Now, his right hon. friend had neither done them
nor himself justice in the splendid speech he had just uttered,
for did he not see that the argument used in reference to this
question was not founded on the fact that there were persons
who broke the law, but on the fact that the law was evaded,
and that public opinion did not visit that act with its cen
sure ? But did the right hon. gentleman mean to tell him,
that when persons were convicted of bigamy, the neighbours
of thou individuals were Mind to approve of that violation
of the penal law ? Did the right hon. gentleman propose to
bring in a bill to visit with felony those Englishmen and
Englishwomen who went to Germany to violate this law ?
No; the right honourable gentleman knew that public
opinion would revolt against any such proposal.
A gentleman from the neighbourhood of Leeds had
called upon him in cumquat* of a few words in a
speech of his on the subject. He was a gentleman en-
gaged largely in manufactures, and he said be went to
Germany to marry his deceased wife's sister, and that he
did it for the sake of his children. When he cams back the
clergyman of the perish, being high church, refused to visit
him or to allow him to take the Sacrament ; and what had
been the eonsf quince ? He had been called upon and visited
by his neiehboun for miles round, who had never called on
him before, and by the clergyman of another church.
There was another *stance. lie had received • letter from
Mr. Arrowenaith, who said that marrying hie deceased wife's
sister had been no obstacle to his being twice elected mayor
of Bolton, and he gave the example of a member of parlia-
ment, whine name he would not mention, as he had not his
permission, who had done the same thing. The right hon.
gentleman talk* of the collective conaneace of the world
being against these marriages, and that he would not allow
the right of individual action in this matter. Why, was it
not stated in that masterly _ speech of the At-
torney-General— a speech which, if there was
nothing but argument to be considered, and they
were not warped by sectarian prejudice , would carry the
measure—was it not stated that in all the civilised states of
Europe, and the United States cfAmerica, the civil law of
the laud was no obstacle to these marriages? The right hon.
gentleman, in order to meet that, quoted the canon law of
the 16th century, and assumed that that was to be the law
now. The right hon. gentleman said they were goiag to
outrage the church of England by this measure, but he
(Mr. Cobden) believed that one half of the clergymen of
the church of England were in favour of the measure, and
that in the manufacturing districts a great proportion of
them were in favour of it. The right hon. gentleman bad
assented moreover that the women of England were against
the measure. Ha denied it. Then, whoa the right hon.
gentleman argued on the divine Jewish law, would it not
be better to turn to the practices of the Jews themeless ?
Dr. Alder was examined, and he said that to far from the
Jews having ever considered the 18th chapter of Leviticus
to be • bar to these manager, they had always considered
them meritorious ; and where the law of the land did not
Interpose obstacles, the Jewish code allowed marriages of
that kind to take place earlier than any other manimges
attar the demo oldie wife. He believed that so far from
Wee marriages Wag against the feeling of the women,
the holing of the meson was in favour of them ; and he
had known fastaness where wives on their death-bed had
requested their husbands to marry tin sister as the only
*eau the children had of obtaining a humans stepmother.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said, if the interest of the
upper classes alone were concerned, his vote would be
against this bill; but after hearing the speeches of the hon.
aad learned member for Plymouth and the right hon. mem-
ber for Oxford, he should give his vote in favour of the bill
with the greatest satisfaction, because he felt that to Assiut
se emir arguments would he for him as a protestant to
abseiss the right of private judgment, and to establish the
deaths em infallible church.
Mr. HEYWOOD said the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone) had ask* him on what principle the bill. was
handed. He was quite willing, as far ss his own feelings
were concerned, to admit that the bill was founded on the
CdPleof expediency. (Oh.) He believed the feeling of
peple was in favour of it. He might mention one case
of beedokip under the present law which had been brought
MAW kis notice. A clergyman in the county of Notting
Wry sere twenty five years ago, was married, and his
wife died; he was twenty years • widower, and he thus
serried his wife's sister, and the Bishop of Oxford 41h-
Frio* him of his living. He considered that • sue of
eeelesiastical tyranny.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against 167-8
_ _ .

The Truitt wee received with catering ow both sides
the house.

The report on supply was thou Inn& op sad agreed to.
Tito kosso adjoarsod at 6 o'clock.