The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-21 00:00:00

but he believed it would tend to destroy religious freedom,
and to corrupt religiose liberty. The right hoe. gentlemen
• AL algebra& had referW to and laid great stress lusts
Illikehltiltee of UPWIND,' c.intendeff, however,thet
the while of Mal tendon e thatakaftarYal in a control.
'affection. •Um chapter lastly teat no one 'hood
appeases to Go that was owe of kin, and at the same
isouustha
eift,,sillkiabowtauandown dearlysad that the
ogionmother'esister was the
unapproachable.
The nature of marriage was more elevated under the
Christian than It was under the Jewish dispensation, and the
degree ef relstkeship being increased, it justified and re•
gaited thirmaintenanee of the prohibition ; bet he held that
this was serried over literally in the New Testa-
men by t sjsree of the spanks themselves. The 16th
chapter orActs distinctly stated that a certain portion of the
Jewish institutions were to be carried over and form
part of the Christian law, and amongst other institutions
that of marriage was described by the general terms.
He did not attach any great weight to the authority
of the 'United States in this matter. There were
certain states of Anseria in which the unlawful
intercourse of a married man with an unmarried
woman was declared not to be adultery. This showed
a most extraordinary state of the community. And tes
with regard to protestant states as the continent, be was
not disposed to accept them as an authority. This was not
the time when they ought to travel to the continent to see
how the sanctity of marriage was to be maintained. He
now came to the Church of Rome : the law of Rome was
still against these marriage. What was her practice ?
Where a small number of Roman catholics were mixed
with others of a different persuasion, she was disposed to
allow ctnsiderable latitude. Amongst Irish Romattieta
the sentiment of the commuaity was distinctly adverse to the
formation of these marriages. There could be no doubt that
at this moment 6-61hs of christendom observed this prehibl•
tion. With the exception of the early periods of the church,
this law had been observed continuously. What was the
argument of stela interest? The record which the pro-
moters
of the bill had furnished would pot an end to the
assertion that it was on account of the poorer claws that
they were called upon to act. It was said that it was unjust
to interfere with natural liberty ; but they would only be
doing left-handed justice it they relaxed the divine
law to enable parties to make contracts which they
considered to be for their interest. There was but
a small portion of persons who would be affected by
the change. The more they went from a small to a larger
class, the more the reasons against change applied with
stronger force. The house had been appealed to on the
ground of the interests of the children of the first wife ; and on
the g,oand of that appeal be refused to assent to the chaotic.
Whet was the effect of mixing with the natural relationship
—a relationship contrary to nature? To add to the cha-
racter of aunt that of stepmother, which was proverbial for
giving rise to jealousies, was not a way to increase
the natural affections ; on the contrary, the new re-
tionship was more likely to vitiate the affection which,
under the present law, would be likely to arise; it wculd
taint the whole atmosphere of society, and lower and impair
its parity. Brotherhood by affinity ought to be practically
th^ same as bro. herhood by blood, and he spoke a truth to
which experience bore testimony when he said, that brother-
hood and sisterhood in law in this country was not a mere
frAion of the law, but was realised in practice, and did, in a
vast multitude of cams, approach to the tendentess of natural
relationship. If .e, it absolutely required the exclusion of
the pce ability of marriage. Recalled on the horn to recollect
that the law of nature depended upon the law: of Chris-
tianity ;• when his right hon. friend went to attack the
law of Christianity, be went to attack the law of
Nature. If thy allowed this bill to pass, they
would be assailed with a series of changes. There
were 36 prohibitions in all; 17 were provided by
Scripture; 18 were provided by the church interpreting,
according its functions, the letter of Scripture. Believing
then that it was vain to talk of the law of nature, or to set it
up as a distinct staudari4, he hoped the house would not hesi-
tate to reject this bill; that it would be so far diapered to
respect the unanimous sentiment of a large portion of the
country, that it would not infirct the penalty of introducing
anarchy amongst its members and on metal grounds he
hoped they would do all in their power to maintain unim-
paired the obligations of the marriage tie.
• - - •

air. 8. WORTLEY deprecated tie attempt to defeat this '
bill by delay. An opvrtunity had been given for taking I
the opinion of the country, and the resnt had been most I
satisfactory. Notwithstanding mcst urged appeals had been I
made, and the whole machinery of the church set in motion
to get the country in opposition to this bill, what had been
the reeult By the last return it appeared that, whilst there '
were 13,000 who had petitioned against the bill, there were I
above 30,000 who had petitioned in its favour ; and since
that report had been presented, 7,000 or 8,000 more persons I
had also petitioned in its favour. In some instances, no-
tires to induce persons to sign petitions awainst
the bill had been delivered from the pulpit. What
said the Bishop of London in 1840 One peti
Lion from the University of Cambridge had been much I
dwelt on, but even that petition did not pretend to
aver that the authority of scripture was against the bill. Be-
sides, in Cambridge five heads of houses were ir. its favour,
*moil others a man well known for his attainments, Dr.
Philpotts—no relation to the Bishop of Exeter. (Loud I
laughter) The hon. and learned member for Plymouth
had avert% dth all the witnesses examined by the corn-
guinea were p none who were themselves anxious for the
change. That might be true, but the parties opposed to it ,
had equal oppertunity had they chosen to avail themselves of ,
it. Even Dr. Pusey had received an invitation to attend. '
In answer to fears that had been expressed relative to this I
bill being only the herald of greater innovations,he begged dis-
tinctly to state that his views went no fur iher,nor did he believe
there was the slightest danger of any further proposition being ,
made. The principle upon which be went was this—that
' in the year 1835 a positive prohibition was rashly intro lured
satinet marriages, which ha believed to be not only per-
mitted in scripture, but expressly enjoined. (Hear, hear.) I
His object was to repeal that prohibition, to withdraw the
question from the legislature altogether, and to leave it alto-
gether
to the church and the conscience a of individuals.
What he would say was that if it could be proved that such
marriages as he proposed to permit were proved to be die-
tined, prohibited by the word of God, then, in the words of
the commissioners ecedit questso, he should be ashamed to
stand at the table to advocate it any longer. They had the
authority of the word of God for toying that those whom he
had joined man should not put asunder ; but this bill of
1815 had put asunder those who believed conscien-
tiously that they had been joined by God. (Hear, hear.)
Another assertion which he had to rebut was one which
had been extensively circulated, to the effect that the object
of this bill was to compel the clergy to celebrate marriages
with a deceased wife's sister. He held in his hand a pam-
phlet, in the first and second editions of which this fallacy
had been propounded. The rev. writer had set the point
right in the third, but without any marginal note or refer-
ence to indicate that he had been wrong in the former edi-
tions. He was sorry to add that the writer was a man of no
less distinction than the author of the " Christian Era." The
bill provided no coercion upon clergymen. Let the house
par the bill, and the position of the church would be the
game as if the bill had never passed. The object of the
bill was, in fact, a very narrow one to restore the law
to its state previous to 1835. It was admitted that there
were only two questions involved in its consideration, the
scriptural one, and that of its probable 8048(41 effects. He
understood it to be conceded that it was extremely difficult
to oppose the measure on scriptural grounds, but he believed
that in the social point of view it was still safer. The right
hon. and learned member proceeded to make some observa-
tions on the theological portion of the question, but the im-
patience of the house, and the continued cries of " divide,"
rendered it impossible distinctly to catch his meaning. We
understood him to argue that if marriage with a deceased's
wife's sister was held to be unscriptural and an abomination,
then would the lineage of Christ be tainted with such t.bomi-
nation, seeing that his mortal ancestor Jacob had married two
sisters, Rachsel and Lash. If they held to the principle of
its impropriety, they should fro the length of the Greek church,
which prohibited two brothers marrying two sisters, or the
Roman, which carried the prohibition to the seventh degree,
He had received letters from various clergymen concurring
in this view of the case. In conclusion, the right hon.i
learned member regretted that he had been forced to being
forward this question on a Wednesday, but trusted that now
the house, having heard the case fully segued, would trams at
once to a decision. (Heat, hear.)

Col. THOMPSON row, amid load cries of " Divide," and
craved one minute for annacienee sake. He was anxious to
support the second reading, but could not do so except on
an undemanding that all those words about marriage with a
deceased wife's brotker's daughter were to be expunged in
committee. (Hear„ bear.)
The hones divided—
For the mend reading
Against it
The bill was then read a second time.

The other orders wen postponed, and the hone adjourned
at 6 o'clock.

MR. W. CHAPLIN meld bate voted in favour of Mr,
Wortley% bill yesterday, but wu unfortunately abut out,
though In the outer lobby of the house.

Lord and Lady John Rowell left town at half-pant
11 o'clock yesterday monies for their resident*, PembrAs
Lo Riehmend-park. The answer girea yesterday at
dge, Lord John's residence in Chesham-plans to the very nume-
rous inquirie• after the state of the noble lord's health was,
" His lordship is quite well."
_ _

Her Majesty's honourable corps of Gentlemen-ht-
Arms were inspected yesterday by their Captain, Lord Foley,
is Rt. James's Pekoe. The mem of the honourahle corps
dined, together at the Trafalgar, Greenwich, in hoaour of
her Majesty's accession to the throne.
FRENCH PLATB.—TRBTIMONIAL TO MR-MITCHELL.
We attended her yesterday afternoon en a very intermit* t
oecusian—tiie presentation of two pieces of plate to Mr.
Mitchell by the patrons of the theatre. Certainly if ever
impresario deserved the gratitude of all connected with him
in his undertaking, it b Mr. Mitchell, who has sot only
ounrasaced each melon with the impulses of a generous
libkrality, bet has fulfilled its course throughout, whether
meessefelor umwseessfal in kis operations, with the exact per-
?anuses of geed faith—a eireumatance of much rarer occur-
rence. The plate eonsistad of magnificent oendelabra of silver
gilt, ample in dimension and millilitre in detail, and of a large
silver salver, en which wes this inscription " Present d to
John Mitchell, Bsq., of the St James's Theatre, by the
patrons of the theatre, as a testimonial of his liberality, and
faith, in the management of the timers."
, Rood
, he Duke of Beaufort, who was accompanied by
Lord Chesterfield and a number of other no-
, blemen and gentlemen, presented the plate to Mr.
Mitchell, in a -brief address expressive of the high sense
he entertained of his conduct as manager of the theatre
during the pest eight years, and of the hope that maws
; would, in future seasons, crowa his energetic efforts.