The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
The following bills were ordered to be considered :
East Indian Railway, Madras Railway, Newport Cor-
poration, Stourbridge Gas, and Surbiton Improvement.
PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented by Mr. PeHatt from various
congregations of Dissenters in the metropolis, against
supporting any form of religious opinions, either in the
United Kingdom or the Colonies, by grants of public
money ; by Mr. Henley, from Oxfordshire, against
from
the
Marriage Law Amendment Bill ; by Col. Smith, rome
York in favour of the bill ; and a petition from the
same place against the Beer Bill ; by Mr. Spooner,
from married women of Warwickshire, in favour of the
Marriage Law Amendment Bill ; by Mr. Scholefield,
from Birmingham, against the Nuisances Removal Bill •
by Sir G. Grey, from Morpeth, .in favour of theChari:
Chari-
table Trusts Bill ;
_by Mr. M. Gibson, from Manchester,
in favour of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill ; also a
petition from Sornersetshire, praying that no dif-
ference may be made between newspapers and printed
pamphlets as regards postage rates ; by Lord
Goderich, from Saddleworth, and other places in York-
shire, in favour of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill ;
by Mr. Baines, from Leeds, in favour of the same bill.
MILITARY FORCE IN THE NORTH
AMERICAN COLONIES.
In reply to Mr. ADDERLET,
Sir G. GREY said authority had been sent out to
the Governors of the North American Colonies to raise
a force of her Majesty's natural-born subjects in those
colonies for active service, but such force had not been
designated a foreign legion.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL.
Mr. EWART moved that this bill be recommitted
and considered on Monday next.
Agreed to.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a second time,
Mr. WALPOLE rose to oppose the motion. He be-
lieved the bill would be productive of public injury, mo-
rally, religiously, and socially. From the earliest time
down to the present the prohibitions against marriage
within certain degrees of consanguinity had been the
same, and therefore, when a proposition was made to
alter or do away with prohibitions that had existed for
at least 1,500 years, it would become the house to pause
before they assented to it. The only alterations made
in the laws relating to marriages in this country since it
was a Christian country was made by Lord Lyndhurst's
act in 1835, which, he believed, to be a wise act ;
and therefore in reality this was the first attempt to do
away with marriages within the prohibited degrees. He
would ask, in the first place, was this change called for
—was it called for by the people of Scotland ? The
hon. gentleman who introduced the bill exempted
Scotland from it. (Hear, hear.) Was it called for
by the people of Ireland ? A witness before the
Commissioners told them the feelings of the people,
both Protestants and Roman Catholics were utterly op-
posed to those marriages ; and, with regard to the people
of England, the Commissioners themselves told them,
by their report, that the feelings of the clergy and people
revolted from such marriages. There were but two ar-
guments put forward in favour of this bill ; the one was
that the existing law put an undue restraint upon religious
liberty ; the other was that it prevented a widower from
providing a mother for an orphan family. With regard
to the first argument, he should say that, if religious
liberty was inconsistent with purity and domestic hap-
piness, it would not be right to allow it ; and as to the
second, he maintained that the aunt was naturally the
best guardian of a sister's children, and therefore he
would prevent her, if he could, from becoming per-
haps a bad step-mother. The right honourable
and learned gentleman entered at much length
into the religious part of the question, and con-
tended that according to the law of Leviticus, a man
cannot any more marry his own sister than he can hie
wife's sister ; for, according to that law, it was stated
that for two brothers to marry one sister, one
after the other, was an abomination, and surely
that prohibition extended equally to two sisters
marrying one man, one after the other. That
was the religious view of the question, which he
feared he ha I very imperfectly explained, thoush he
owned it had great weight with him in coming to a con-
clusion on this question. With regard to the social ad-
vantages which it was urged this bill would promote, he
believed that if the existing law were altered the wife's
sister would be prevented by instinctive delicacy and
propriety of feeling from living under the roof of her
sister while that sister lived, and therefore the chances
would be diminished, instead of increased, of providing
the best guardian for an orphan family. It was said
that this bill was intended to promote the morality of
the lower classes ; but after a diligent search of
eight or nine years, the commissioners bad ascer-
tained that the breaches of the existing law stood
in the proportion of about 100 among the upper
classes, about 1,400 among the middle classes, while
among the lower orders the number was only about
50. (Hear.) He therefore hoped the house would reject
this measure, which wouldirreparably injure the interests
of the many to indulge the desires of a few. He con-
cluded by moving that the bill be read a second time this
day six months. (Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the bill.
He contended that the existing 'aw was an injurious and
tyrannical law, and could no longer be allowed to re-
main on the statute-book. He denied that the whole
question, so far as religion was concerned, turned upon
the point as to whether there was a prohibition in the
written law of God or not. Ile maintained that, to his
apprehension, the passage in Leviticus bore a directly
opposite meaning to that put upon it by the right, lion.
and learned gentleman, and that the real meaning of the
Levitical law referred only to the fact of such marriages
being prohibited while the wife was living, and not at
all after she had ceased to live. In the Roman Catholic
Church those marriages were treated as matters of dis-
cipline and dispensation, and in every Protestant coun•
try of Europe, except our own, no such prohibition by
law existed as now existed in England. He asked when
Europe, Protestant and Catholic, were divided in opi-
nion upon the meaning of the Levitical law, what right
bad we dogmatically to impose such restrictions on those
who did not agree with them on the point ; fur the
whole body of the Dissenters of this country, and a very
large portion of the Protestants, did not regard those
marriages as contrary to the divine law. Those were
the religious views of the question. With regard to
the social point of view, it could be shown that the
consequences likely tc, ensue by repealing the existing
law, as pointed out by the hon. and learned gentleman
(Mr. Walpole) were purely speculative, and did not
contain one parti•ele of fact. The hon. and learned
member then went on to say that it was not amongst the
superior classes that a strong desire was manifested for
the legalisation of these marriages, but it was more par-
ticularly amongst the lower classes, to whom liberty to
contract ma xv. iages with a deceased wife's sister would he, in
too many "Instances, a boon beyond description. As it
was, the
temptati ' present state of the law offered to these people
One of the strongest kind to immorality by coha-
bitation . But, beyond these considerations was there
no goo b
a
good in repealing the existing law ? This question
ethaaset en called a woman's question, but he maintained
it was a motherless children's question. Put the
to any woman—ask her if she, a mother with young
chit
,dren, was stricken with disease, and know she
11;' Ist soon be removed from this world, whether
ar se would choose her offspring to be left to the
t' .ender and fostering care of a relative, or of some
other woman—a stranger whom her husband might
afterwards marry—which would she prefer ? (Hear.)
The time had come, he maintained, when the present
state of the law ought to be repealed, but before he
asked them to expunge it, let him inquire how, in the
first place, it got there ? In former years, as his right
hon. and learned friend had said, these marriages were
legal, but they were always avoided. But he (the At-
torney-General) denied that there could be shown an in-
stance in which a marriage of this kind ever was avoided.
The learned gentleman then described the manner in which
the present law came into operation, which he character.
ised as being the most singular chapter in legislation
which was ever recited—and then adverted to the misery
and confusion which had resulted from it. He, for one,
believed this law to be most mischievous, uncalled for,
and tyrannical, and for his part he should give his most
cordial and unqualified support to the second reading of
the bill before the house. The right hon. gentleman
resumed his seat amidst applause.
Mr. WIGRAM differed from the construction placed
upon the Levitical law by te right honourable
and learned gentleman who had j u
also from the argument he hadst sat down ; and
urged to the
effect that Parliament ought not to bind the people of
this country to its particular interpretation of Scripture
meaning. Unless they placed some limit to the scope
)many
ny
of
this argument they might legalise polygamy, which
n
P,nople in this country believed to be perfectly allowable
.v. 7 religions and moral law. At the same time he (Mir.
gram) did not think that it would be safe to trust
to the belief that persons who are of opinion
in
rer with a deceased wife's sister was not permissible
alt Point Point of view, would avail themselves of the
~,a8
mos gin the law. On a variety of grounds he
present setae: 121 Y opposed to any interference with the
try, because it zit of the law of marriage in this coun-
eulated to proestsaa„ bard to say what effects it was cal-
Mr. COLLlERt.hreminded the house that the grounds
of opposition to
harlusation of marriage with a ceased wife's sister
de-
When the question was; fil4"gane material alteration.
irbei
thatd btyh
et
yh ewl
ware
taken that these marriages tn,,Zes the high ground was
of God. He defied proof frenAhrFtlin
so prohibited. (Hear, hear.
%being the case, he
contended that it was contrary to
ptrhoel:ißbelt-
formation that human law should inZ spirit of
Re-
that which was not prohibited by theerlaPw°" to
be quoted a passage from the writings of Luther°ftoG 13td4 that
effect. The hoe. gentleman then went on
there was only one passage of Scripture whichSZT
this question, and that was not a prreodbii--
redly on
bition,,, but a tacit permission. (Hear, hear.) ire
alluded to the one which laid down that a man may
Dot marry the sister of his wife while his wife is living ;
but was it to be inferred from this that he ought not
linlia_r7 her after his wife was demi I (Hear, hear.) Well.
Vaasa marriages were not prohibited in Scripture—if
I„4„43"'elre regarded under the Mosaic dispensation in the
I,l7,,Lnftineest or fornication, they. might naturally
an oat the Jew 'a contracting such marriages,
baked teat
did continually, would have been re:
trausa • but, throughout the
tWolltolfiendennalst eratissn_ backsliding;, he could
o:l4ar, hear-single Then reference to one of this character.
was said that these marriages=
were prohited by the law of nature. Now, without en-
tering into the profound specolatio which
had divided
the writers on moral philosophy
to the tuiiVergal law