The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-04 00:00:00

MARRIAGE BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. GOULBURN rose to more that it be ready,
second time this day six months. The subject, he 55i1;
was surrounded with considerable difficulties. In t"
first place, it was most painful to him to find himself °P;
posed in a question of degree and obligation to rettn'a
persons, for whose station and standing he entertail3„e4
the highest respect, and to whose opinon under ordiesr'.
circumstances he should be most ready to bow—(111,
o
hear)—and he could assure his Right Hon. Friend
be felt the pain not the less, because it placed him ill
position to his Right Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.) of
was painful also to him to resist the wishes
but
many who had violated the law in ignorance, ,y
he felt so strongly upon this question, that Inetireo
of this nature ought not to influence him in the tours
he should adopt.—(Hear, hear.) It was a question e d
tremely difficult to deal with in Parliament, as it involl,
a Divine command conveyed to them through 11°,1,1
Writ, which ought to be reserved tor an asserablY
divines and learned men to discuss and 5
termine in retirement.—(Hear, hear.) It , "„"a
a question which affected the whole law of prolifing
degrees, and could not be confined to the narrow ht/5y
on which his Right Hon. Friend had restricted
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was impossible to cer,t,
fine the relaxation of the law to the partictl;
limits contemplated by this Bill. The queetiti,
for the House to consider was rather the degrees of $
nity within which marriages were at present lialiteo
with the view to the expediency of confining marrisAso,
to simple cases of consanguinity. It was said that It?
quiry had demonstrated that the marriages now Prclto
bited by the law were the happiest, and they claimed to
have proved this by facts. But persons who went
,~ter,
the country to make inquiries upon this fosttds,
doubtless did so with a bias on their 103 of
The heart of man possessed more or less j:
evil; but was it right to pander to that vice, and Wa's,ila
a rational argument to say that by doing so they w°,"
thereby promote the cause of morality? The researele
of the Commissioners bad led them to observe that loi-
t
number of marriages of the kind proposed to be
with by the Bill that had taken place during the ""0(
years amounted to 15,000—that the marriages, „st
widowers with deceased wives' sisters affected at fiee'ts
30,000. Let the House listen attentively to the,430..
adduced in the evidence gathered by the (1,°,00
missioners. Mr. Denham, the incumbent of '„o,
parishes, the population of which were 10,Out.i1
declared that though the subject had attracted P 5,
attention, and though he had mixed with all classir
high and low, he could not point out any particujof
cases. The Hon. Gentleman quoted the evidence ed
other clergymen in support of this view, and argue,from them that the number of marriages without the Ptbs
hibited degree were, considering the large amount otgr,
population, extremely small in number; and the Iles'
Tyler, the rector of St. Giles's for 23 years, the pep ado
tion of which was 27,000, stated that he bad 01,
inquiry, and could not discover a single case. The e:‘,P%e-d,
rience of Dissenting ministers, several of whom l':ee pqur°o-11i-
presented the same results. It was said that
h
bition of the marriages referred to would ioduce Collett-
binage; but that to his mind was no reason
they should legalise incest—(Hear, hear)—becausemarriages of this description were opposed to Divllire
law ; and even if they were not there We'l,
moral reasons why they should not be legaliseuo,
During ancient times, when men had opportunities,
forming a better knowledge of the law of God, cool*
as it did fresh from his hands, than at the present dal'
when, indeed, their stock of modern knowleds
could not fail to increase, though not
Divine law, no doubt existed as to the
interpretation of the meaning of the law, and surely
doubt could exist at the present day, when they CO
only judge after thousands of years had passed awaY•4
(Hear, hear.) When Henry VIII. wished to rattr7,
his wife's sister, the King got one of his courtleon
to write to Cranmer to ask his opinion On,
the matter, and whether such a marriage would be co„
trary to the law of God. In reply, he said the 10111,Zr
could not marry otherwise than as laid down 4
the law of God, which he said prohibited
a marriage. This opinion was given by Cr 11l
mer, in days when the will of Kings—espec'3,o,
such a king as Henry VIII., were invariably bowed "
Ridley, Dr. Cox, and other great men of that day, wart,
of the same opinion. The Hon. Gentleman quote' t„
number of other authorities in support of that argureei:,o
The Right Honourable Gentleman then referred to t",,
evidence given on the subject by the Right Rev. /3b
Wiseman, which was unfavourable to a relaxation /0 ,
: tit
present law, and proceeded to show that by the Levit'ej
law a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was strict?)/
forbidden. The uniform judgment of the Church ,
England had always been, from its foundation to the PI,
sent hour, against any such alteration as now propose
and he (Mr::Gettlburn) contended, that a more fatal Ste:r.
to the peace of families, or more calculated to endeng"of
public morals, could not be taken, than the abrogation
o
the existing prohibitions in the marriage law.
.5'9
what had been advanced in the course of such argume"„
~tf
on the subject, that it was desirable, even for the Sala
the deceased wife's children to allow 511 c
marriage, he contended that when a man Mitr
ried the sister of his deceased wife, such a marri.s
must lead to the most painful discord in the family, the
produce results calculated to promote anything but t",,f
happiness of those concerned. Besides, nine-tenths vf,
the clergy were opposed to it, not only from convictit'v;
but because they felt themselves bound by the canonrolt,
to. resist any such relaxation as now proposed. ,„"';jl,
Right Hon. Gentleman, however, who proposed the P.l
sought to get over the last difficulty by making it opti°l'-d,
with the clergy to perform it or not, just as they plea
His (Mr. Goulburn's) Right Hon. Friend did not 101,19.
how to deal with the case, as regarded clergymen; and 'ltis
therefore, proposed that it should be left optional W"
them to do so or not, just as they pleased. But would elf
remedy the evil which he (Mr. Goulburn) anticipate",
The effect of that must be, that one law would exist
those whom clergymen consented to marry, and anothee
for those that contented themselves by going to the offic
of the register. It the clergymen refused to Per;
form such marriages, and in nine cases out of ten they
would so refuse, the people would then go to the office,
of the register; and what must be the effect of such
practice becoming general on the minds of the great,
body body of the people? He implored them not to touci'd
subject on which the feelings of the people of Ent 16°,/
were so much engaged, and, above all things, not to 611° a
them they were willing to relax those laws which' fet ce

round the institution amarriage. •
Lord BRACKLEY would give his vote most coralel/1
that this Bill should be read a second time.—(Hear.)
Mr. HAGGITT said that, both upon theological etiere
social grounds, the argument in support of this znes°,4l
was most unsatisfactory. The effect of passim thielrtio
would be to place the Church and State in an atitagoe' se
position. Many clergymen were of opinion that these
marriages were incestuous, and the legalising of thee,
marriages would place them in a most painful Plot
fho.ro
mep
ctd
(Jet
sanctioninga d women,
oG nie
en
nttl
,heme
measure. He
wellHe cons ht
purettihlns; peoanindndt
highhb ee
husbands, would not go to residue)
brother-in-law, if there was a doubt upon this sulterd
upon the
tthheehdoeuastehs
of
thout u-
Instead of lowering their laws to an inferior stands
of morality, they ought rather to elevate their stsic""er
if possible. The question now was, whether 1014,
strict obedience should, in future, guide the law of
land. In deciding, they should remember that the "of
was only the principle of human folly, and the other
eternal truth.—(Hear.)
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said, the peopositl
which the Hon. Gentleman had put before the 0(,)100..
was, whether this question was to be decided upon Woo
logical grounds? The religious opinions upon to
subject were not so clear and palpable as end
be a certain guide. If the religious grebol
taken by the opponents of the measure jo
been so palpable as they asmmed it was, iC I the
have been thought impossible that any member e.n its
Church of England could have signed a petition
only
favour, whereas they had numerous petitions, It'. tie
signed by the laity, but by the clergy of the Chure bo-
himself had presented one that night from his eerigreat
rough, which was signed by the vicar, a men °L ed,
piety, and a political opponent of his own. He belles iids it
therefore, that both upon religious and moral grou
was most desirable that this Bill shod(' receive the efr'es,
:disr-
of the House. He feared that if it did nor,
sion would go abroad that the higher classes 4?
gardful of the interests and feelings of the inwidrd_lrctSiit'yti
lower classes. With respect to the alleged inr!,", „re.
which would flow from it, he believed that it vief:4l9ii
Toot much of that illicit irate course v411°1311"

lateunder their present state of the law, and that none
the injuries which were apprehend: d from the change
' culd follow. The Attorney-General had stated
that clergymen of the Established Church could be
compelled to administer the offices of the Church by
Common law. He thought that the clause in the Bill on
that subject was a piece of homage and respect to the
clergy which they ought to he content with. It gave
any clergyman who had con,eientious scruples against
performing such marriages the option of refusing; but
as there was a great difference among- the clergymen
themselves the marriage would not thereby be prevented.
It was only necessary for parties so situated to go to a
Cle''gYman who had no such scruples, in order to have
the marriage solemnized. le had no desire to compel
t!ae ministers of the Church to perform acts from which
-faconscientiously dissented, and he thought this was
4."4P1y provided for. Regarding this Bill as a rtmtely
for a great practical evil, and believing that no injury
Would arise from it to any class, he hoped it would be
considered consistent with his duty, as a member of the
Church of England, to give it his cordial support.
Mr. SEYMER said that those who, like himself, were
convinced that the Bill was opposed to the law of God,
were bound to act upon that conviction, and oppose it.
(Hear, hear.) But with reference to the evidence
upon which it was based, he must say that, after having
carefully read the report of the Commission, and every
question and and answer in the blue book, he had come
to the conclusion that it was a one• sided one.—(Loud
cheers.) The greater part of the evidence was given
by interested partie, by persons, in fact, who had
broken the law they wished to have repealed.—
(Hear, hear.) It was as if an agitation was got up for
the abrogation of the law against sheep-stealing on the
evidence of convicted sheep-stealers.—(A laugh.) That
Was precisely the case with this Bill. Instead of relaxing
Pie law, he would tighten it by passing a short law declar-
ing that the marriages were illegal between Englishmen
and English women, who went abroad to be married
under the impression that their marriage was thereby
legalised. If that were done, he believed the law would
be obeyed. The Hon. Member proceeded to examine
the evidence, which he said showed, by the testimony of
Mr. Brotherton, that marriage within the prohibited
degrees of consanguinity was exceedingly prevalent in the
diocese of Manchester. Another case was stated of a re-
spectable and wealthy man, who kept his carriage, and he
was sorry to say, as the House would perceive by the
evidence, kept his mistress also.--(Hear, and a laugh.)
It was stated that he cohabited with his deceased wife's
sister, and was only prevented from marrying her by
the unsettled state of the law; then he protested against
that man's respectability.—(Cheers.) It was of a similar
character,to the definition of that word, some years
ago, when a respectable man was explained to be
one who kept a horse and gig.—(A laugh.)
-where could be no respectability in living in opposition
to the law. But Mr. Foster in his pamphlet continually
used the terms that " parties were compelled to do this
by the defective state of the law." He could not under-
stand why such terms were used. What compelled this
man to cohabit with his wife's sister? He knew of no
compulsion which should cause him to over ride the law.
He could not take the opinion of the class who lived in
towns as a guide for his conduct on the present ques-
tion. He had endeavoured to explain the sentiments he
entertained regarding the proposed alteration of the law,
and his opposition to it was on the ground that it was
against the principle of their church, and the principle
of their law—(Hear, hear)—from which he would not
depart.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he would
refer to what had been said about dispensations being
granted by the Pope, in what had been called the
dark ages, for the purpose of enabling an uncle to
marry his niece. Now he would tell the Honourable
Member, that the Pope could not grant any dispen-
sation for any purpose that would be contrary to
toe law of God. As far as the discipline of
the Catholic Church was concerned, that was another
thing; but no dispensation could interfere with that
which was the law of God. Whenever, therefore, dis-
pensations were granted by the Pope, they had a right
to hold that the purpose of the dispensation was in con-
formity with the law of God. He was in favour of the
proposed measure, as he believed there was a large body
of persons in this country who advocated its necessity,
and who were entitled to the relief which its provisions
Could afford them.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL was of opinion that the re-
lief proposed to be given in the Bill was one called for
by the pride and selfishness of man, and was not for the
advantage of women.—(Hear, hear.) He could refer to
the evidence given by Dr. Wiseman on the subject as
proving that in Ireland the measure was not needed.
lie could also say that he had recently had ocsasion
to consult Dr. Brown, the Catholic Bishop of
Elphin, and although that Right Reverend Pre
late wished to guard himself against being thought
to do more than simply to express his own opinion,
yet he (Mr. John O'Connell) could say that Dr. Brown
had had great experience, first in Galway, and next in
Elphin, and his statement was that no case had occurred
of such a marriage taking place in these districts, of
which he had any knowledge. He (Mr. J. O'Connell)
did not intend to enter into any discussion, and had risen
merely with a view to mention these facts with refer-
ence to Ireland.

Mr. COCKBURN apprehended that they were en
titled to expect at the hands of the House a careful con,
sideratiosi of the measure before them, because the Bil
which the present measure was intended to remedy had
been carried under circumstances of a very peculiar cha-
racter. In fact, that Bill was passed to protect a parti-
cular case, by making a number of other parties suf-
ferers. It was suggested by Sir W. Follett, who had
charge of the Bill, that if the particular clause bearing on
the present subject was omitted, the omission might be
fatal to the Bill. Under these circumstances, therefore,
the measure now before them was under consideration.
He would first say that if the position taken up by the
Member for Cambridgeshire was a tenable one, then
there was an end of the matter. But if the measure now
proposed be opposed to Divine law, he called upon Hon.
Menbers, who so argued, to cite the law, as they were
as well able to judge of such a matter as Churchmen
were.—(Hear, hear.) The only passage in scripture he
could find bearing upon the subject was the following,
namely, " Thou shalt not take a wife to a sister to vex
her in her lifetime." Now this passage merely showed
that a man should not marry two sisters while both were
living. It was intended to prevent the divorcing of one
sister from the purpose of marrying another, or of mar-
rying one sister during the lifetime of another. This,
then, he would contend, amounted to a permission to
marry a deceased wife's sister under any circumstances,
for the prohibition only applied to the lifetime of the
wife. The Hon. Member then quoted the opinions of
several eminent Divines—those of Jeremy Taylor especi-
ally, with reference to the Levitical law, and said that all
these opinions showed that many things held under the
Mosaic law had been altogether departed from
in Christian countries. Whatever, however, might be,
the opinion of Churchmen, he would maintain that such
a question should be considered upon social, moral, and
religious grounds. The fathers of the early Church,
Whatever might be their virtues and abilities, carried
their ascetism to a most mischievous extent. Persons
Who contracted second marriages were condemned for
doing so, and those who contracted third marriages were
considered as being no better than beasts.—(Hear, and
langliter.) The Hon. Member then referred to the
canons of the Church at an early period, to show the
very extreme nature of the opinions entertained by the
Church on the subject of marriage. The Noble Lord
who last addressed the House said, and said truly, that
the Roman Catholic Church only exercised a dispensa-
tion, allowing of those marriages as a matter of church
discipline, but not at all as a power derived under the
Divine law.—(Hear, hear.) With reapect to the
means resorted to ,by Henry the Eighth to effect the
object which he had in view, they were all historically
acquainted with them. Foiled in his applications to
the Pope, he directed his application to the Legislature,
and a pandering Parliament passed the 25th of Henry
the Eighth, which renders those marriages illegal, and
it was from such a source as that—from, he would say.
such an unholy and polluted source—that the English
divines took their authority. He (Mr. Cockburn) ad-
mitted, and admitted readily, that the law as it
stands should be obeyed ; but, at, the same time, he said
it was the duty of Parliament, a's a Legislative body,
not to so make the law as to interfere with the course of
human affections—not to make it arbitrarily and capri-
ciously, but to make it in a manner calculated to pro-
mote social happiness and virtuous inclinations.—(Hear,
hear.) If the considerations to which ho had referred
should not operate to keep a man within the bounds of
' decency, if they should not operate to prevent a man
from laying his hands upon his wife's sister, and from
having incestuous intercourse with her, then, no laws
which they could make would operate upon such a
man, for, by his guilt—guilt from which every moral
and sensitive mind would recoil in horror—he proved
himself insensible to shame. What 1 were their
English women so fallen in sense of decency and morality
as to allow their sister's husband to lay incestuous
hands upon them? No, he utterly disbelieved it.—
(Hear, hear.) It had been said that iu other countries
no such marriages prevailed. Now that was not the
case. In all Catholic countries they were known to pre-
vail, and in Protestant countries on the Continent, they
were also known to prevail. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then cited the opinions of Professor Story in
favour of such marriages, as those of one of the greatest
jurists who had written on the subject, and showing that
there was nothing in the Divine law which forbade a man
to marry with his wife's sister. It was a custom which
prevailed in the United States of America, where, allow
him to say, the standard of morality
was quite as high as
is this country. Surely, a law which rested upon an hypo-
thesis ought to be done away with. The law could not
alter human nature, and if they would attempt.to do that,
they were legislating in the dark.—(Hear, 'near.) Look-
ing at the other side of the question, he would ask
them, were there no evils resulting from their laws?
y, to a very great extent their law was most inju-
rious. Within a iew years of tho passing of Lord
Lyndhurst's Act, it was said that no less than 1,500 of
those marriages took place. On the other hand, they
had eighty-eight cases in which the law bad not been
obeyed at all, and o
had no less than thirty-three of
these eighty-eight case they
living in a state of :1Y-three in which the parties were
those were cases °llcubinage owing to the law. Now,
were desirous to marry,where it was certain that the parties
isind would marry had not the
. law- forbidden thene.( hear.) If Innocent chil-
dren were to be deprived ineatri;* of their legitimacy,
he said the Legislature wasisbuwtayinvolving families in
confusion, and that they ought not to trifle lightly with
( innocent children.—
(Hear,the happiness of families
Yes,)ta ybenst,
the Parliament,
persons are
hear.) It was said,
oParliament,
bound to obey the law."
in its legislative capacity, ought not to
(tiLroaw temp-
tation in their way to break the law.— r, hear.)
The Hon. and Learned Member then alluded ;
nions of Jeremy Taylor, a favourite authority owiTheh"iPmi,
and showed that they were iu favour of persons in the
relationship under consideration, marry Mg. He thought
. they should nut shut the doors of Parliament against
marriages of this kind, and that children of a first niar-