The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDII—TriumAT, FEN. 23.
TM Leto Comics:A.oa took his seat at 5 o'clock.
PETITIONS PRESENTED.
WAaatAOs Arnstro Bitt..—By the Earl of ST. GER-
MANS, trove various placer • the Bithop of WINCHES-
TER, from places in his dioce&e ; Lord WIIAItSCLIFEE,
from several places in Yorkshire and other parts of Eng-
land ; Earl EITZWILLIAM, from several places; the
Earl of CARLISLE, from Wakefield, Leeds, Birmingham,
Sheffield, Barnsley, and several other places ; and Lord
ovEitsToNF., from the City of London, most numerously
and nnVeetably signed, in layout of the Marriage Affinity
Rill. he Earl of CAMLIaLIt and Lord OeLlteroNE sup-
ported the prayers of the petitions they peesented, and ex-
preise.il a hope that the bill would pass.—By Lord CAMP-
BELL, from several religious congregations; the Marquis
of SA LISBU ItY, from the clergy of the town and neigh-
bourbond of Birmingham ; and Earl NELSON, from the
ehirgy of Shrewsbury, Liverpool, and other places, against
the bell.
MARRIAGE. AFFINITY BILL.
The Earl of ST. tiElt '3IANS, in moving the second read-
ing of this bill, mid that at the close of last session, a bill
VOW brought up from the other house of parliament, to
betalise marriage with a di mooed wife's sister. Ile took
charge of that hill r luetantly, nut, however, because he
smiterajned any doubt of the wisdom or policy of such •
measure. Ili. afterwards withdrew the measure for that
session in consequence of the late period at which it came
op to the it lionl.hipo* house, and he promised to losing it
forward early this be.ion, which promos he was now
about to fulfil. The noble ben then quoted from
Mr. Wesley and other authorities to prove that ter-
Lim expromons in Leritieus meant to imply marriage, and,
if so, that a man was justified by the law of Moses in mar-
rying his wile's sister. The noble lord proceeded minutely
to examine various pariaagvi in the came men it book, to
*how the opinion of the ittspiri 4 lawgiver on this subject.
It was flea that the into rule of interpretation was, that
that which had not been forbidden in the Igeritiral law was
permitted. 'lbis was the opinion of Mr. Milner; and
there wet nothing to prove that Moses prohibited marriage
with a detained wife's sister, whilst marriage with a de-
cease d brother's wife was clearly permitted. The noble
bail further quoted front leder anal Professor !Michaelis in
support of the proposition. It had teen said that affinity
and consangenuity war: the same, and that a man hire
the none ri lationakip to his wife's family as to hi, own ;
hut this argument could not he sustained, bemuse: if it were
temlil: it would be impossible lira men to num. his bro-
th, ron-lavr's widow. which;was w,w permitted. 'The chief
rabbi of the Jew, in this country hail stated that it was
not considered immoral among the Jews to marry with a
elec. &seal wife's sister; and, in fact, where there we're
yOuln.; Children such marriages were elbowed to take place
rule r than a marriage with any other woman after the
di oh of a man's wife. trusWil their lonithi(n would
be satisfied. after the anthorities w hieh hr hail cited, that
there was nn prohibition rigainst marrying& dereaseil wife's
r in the Miamie disps•nsation; awl he then tome to
the gospel dispensation, in which nothing could la found
ate such marriages. Our Sas iour, in the ease of the
wontato who hail married sewn brothers, expressed no
disapprobation at her having done so. They were told
that the practice iif the early church was Ornewed to
it, but what proof was there that in the early history of
the Christian church such marriages a are prohibited i In
early ecclesiastical writer, more friquent referenca V(.1.4
made to the Woman laws on the subject of marriage than to
Mosaie institurions. WeU, then, it could not he said that
neon or. with a wife's sister was oppoeeil to the
...lra law. There was e, rtainly a canon whit h alt eland
that a elergyiwin marrying Lis eh erased wife's sister should
Is ploleibited from communion for live year'., hut that was
the only penalty. Stnmg op' • ins were, however, then
cot mine by father% of the church that celibacy was a
mor, holy stab, than matrimony, and every restriettion was
pm upon marriage. A second marriage, it was then said,
was Litt', noire than di semis adultery ; and in the year
1010) Al. unitive' 111. r.-strat,-.1 marriage beyond the seventh
duvet, of ninsatigninity. In 1.1151 this law was relaieit,
and m•lrriage. Were not peasant, al to t:;,• place wind. the
Marti, degree 14 about a he cial dism.coat ion. 'flue,
IO Tiered, was now the law of the catholic church.
In lien Archbishop Parker tin.w up a table of the degrees
within which marriages were probilrited ; and it is worthy
of notice that arIIOCI4 his notes, found inter his death, was
ime to the elf set that ~is of the nom einioent eammentators
were in favour of a MAW+ being allowed to marry a de-
reiresl wife's sister. Lied Hard% tyke' said that a canon to
which the poi oldi• haul not assented by their representatives
war not binding upon them; and an eminent prelate now
Ake, Bohol, Short. in his .` History of the Chards of Eng-
land,- stud many of the rations had been superseded by
acts of parliament, awl that they required a. a whole to be
remodelled. It was note le to lie r ((ratted that the canons
were not moos in :went-dance with the temper of the
times, but o lour ..• they elided it was 110 r
right to mak. s.li • Gins, nail apply them against the
hill befon• the house. thief Justin. Vaughan said that
eon. the rosined of Lateran every council varied the
canon law, editing that that which was always (hanging
email not ho' a measure of rectitude, eseept it the time
to which it relabel. The tend article• of the church of
Pinta:int said distinctly that general notneils had erred, and
that, then fen., the thing. ordained by th, in were not
iialro. !dainty dirt teed in holy scripture.. Ile (the
Earl of St. Germane) si eiteircil to ailiren that the prohibi-
tion in gutsli.m could not Ite lounel in holy scripture ; and
iu that ~neon hr ass supported by the opinion.
of the late Bishop of I.lmilieff awl the present Bishop
of IMrlon. Ile would now say • foss words in
reference to the matide law. Theis lord-bile, were aware
that 11. toy VIII., alt e he lOW Is, is married 211 years to
the widow of hie brother Prime Arthur, and slier leaving
;astr by thnt niarriarze. Is,- tine vitannittred of Anne fluky.,
"nil uSintately means! from .• an opintini
that his find newel e7e was litan. 01, and induced his
podium st to dieters, the 1,•11e fit olle,:dim.tte, and In
rattle the rare -.ion .In th it or hi, nen.,;,,t,.. In tin.
COUTO' Or lon fir three y. are theory, itr: got rid of Ann..
htolo . Is. married Jane 5, \mour, the iota. of the two pre-
lim.. tweriages beteg oh, far“l ilharitimate. The hut art
of his reign ion the subj., t was the and that art bas-
in.: hen nywaleil by dm. I.t and 2,sd l'hilip and Mary,
rttnido r tt, at I. ad rs now It as relatisl to poshilaited de-
ar tht letter art remained the only statute law un the
soles t emit the miming of the !eh must 11th \Tinian. IV.,
commaroly railed Intl Lyndhurst'. Act. There was, in
fast, leo prohibition what. cot. It was only who n large
pnawrties were at %bd.' that there wa. a, interferenee.
110 noble frisnil (Lord Lyndhurst), whom aleance on that
were oim, he is grettisl. Galin.; the law to he in an unilate-
ral tort state. attempted to ',posit's, tt dy for that evil.
Bu l& t or did he protai'd ? Ile brought in a hill to limit
the time for commencing i cek+ia.tical emit. affect-
Mg the eltililren of parents why h.al married
within the pruhilsited degrees : and if pr.,ecedni were Ind
taken *khan a n•rtAin period the moniage het are alssilutele
valid, There was a clause in the hill derlaring that alt
marriages hereafter to be eeleliratial w itl it the nOollibited &-
grey • of stonily and cou•an..minity should be absolutely null
and tool, s•acepting Scollaitil. Ile haellwasil withsurprise the
right te•. prelate then sitting at the tattle (the Bishop id'
Ess l'•,'• Pr.".lvting a Islitiovi, term it a petition against
-t ..... 14 carnage, That esporrosion instil's,' the very
point wltielt they were eontrovi.ning. (Hear. hear.)
The ads orates of the bill said that such marriages
wire not inc.-Mame. The right reverend prelate
knew that the very nom s' incestuous- derived
from heathen mythology, wine by assenting to laird
Lyndhurst'. hill he had helped to Legalist' marriages which
hr thus characterised. (Hear, hear.) Ily the last statute
parliament had glared the parti• • interested in this ques-
tion in a worse position than they were before. There were
now • considerable number of marriages which the law
to he invalid. 'the Ilishop of Lincoln, an oppsi-
dent of the bill, said that these marriages were not prohi-
bited by the Levitical law, hut the church, acting upon her
01.1.1 judgment of what was right in the matter. had
prohibited them. Ile submitted that if the prohibition
wore not proveulde out of scripture the church had no
mover to isms our. (Hear. hear.) A great number
of the must zealous clergy throughout England were
in Emma of the promos' change iu the law. Ile
that in nine mows out of ten the aunt, instead
of making a had stepmother. would tuake the best
another. (Hear. hear.) Ilut the question was had they •
right to prohibit these maniacs They had no right to
prohibit them on the ground that they were not advisable,
Mr there were many marriages which were inexpedient,
such as the marriage of an old man and a young woman or
the contrary, or the marriage of a man having daughters
with a woman of had eharaeter, and yet it would be the
greatest legislative tyranny to prohibit them. Unfree
tiny could show that these marriages were forbidden
by the law of nature or were inconsistent with
the host interest. of society the burden of proof in this
question lay with theme who nisintained the propriety. of
probilvitinit them. The law was ineffectual—the rich
evaded it by having them marriages snlemuised abroad•
though it was doubtful whether or not that rendered them
legal. And those that eoutract, d these marriages were not
Looked down upon by society. Ile called upon their lord-
ships, then• to ponder and weigh well the responsibility of
maintaining this Ulf, be. Jure if thew marriages were, as he
believed them to be, aanetionesl by the law of tied, then
were they incurring the grist responsibility of putting
.outoler these whom God had joined !Nether. (Hear.
hear.) Ile called on them to review the subject, and, if
they were satisfied that there was even a doubt un the mat-
ter. he asked them by their votes that night to give the
WOO another opportunity of considering the very im-
mortant question which he had now very imperfectly ven-
tured to bring before it. (Cheers.)
The question baying bran put.
The iiinithishop of I'ANTE.RBURY (who spoke in so
low • tune as to be almost inaudible in the genera) was
unilernmel to say that he felt hound, as • matter of duty,
to opmot the motion which had been male by the noble
earl, and supported by a speech of great research and
moderation. (Hear, hear.) It would not be ueeemary fur
him to detain their loolships fur any length of time. loreause
the argument on which be relied in ronetimt the motion
rested on • small basis. It was the argument which arose from

.....—..
the word of fi ud, which bethought completely% t the question
at rest. (Hear. hear.) Thu most reverend prelate then
proceeded to show from the language used in the lath
chapter of Leviticus that the marria,te with a thaws% d
...les sister wa. forbidden by the word of God. That view
W.lOl confirmed by the concurrent opinion of all the Christian
hurehes for many MCVS. Pope Alexander VI. was
the ant to Mont a dispensation from these marri-
age.. hut the innovation of one who was a diagram
to any church should not be followed. Ile did nut
think t►e annuneut which had been derived from
the number of these marriages was a solid ground for doing
away with the prohibition against them. He had no doubt
that a great number of persons would he found living in
whetibthese, but that was ma macs fee emaullias the °Wk.