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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COTkIMONS, June 20.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition
BILL. of yesterday.)
MARRIAGES
On the question for resuming the adjourned debate on
this Bill,
Mr. NAPIER assured the House that he approached
this question with some degree of hesitation, as it was
one of difficulty and delicacy. The question had much
agitated the public mind, and he thought it due to the
importance of the subject and the public that it should
be calmly and dispassionately discussed. It was stated
its the published report of the Commissioners who had
investigated it, that the majority of the people of this
country were adverse to the Bill, and the report attempts
to explain that feeling by stating that it was in a great
measure founded upon a vague and uninformed notion of
the in:Tolley of the Bill, but for his part he concurred
with the great mass of the petitions presented against
the Bill, and believed that it was the conviction
that it was opposed to the Scriptures as well as opposed
to sound social policy, that had induced the public to
oppose it. It was said by the supporters of the Bill
that it was not of a compulsory character—that it left the
matter to the conscience of each individual so far as
existing marriages were concerned; but this was not a
question of conscience, it was rather a question of
whether a restriction of liberty was required by a due
regard to the exigencies and moral wants of society.
It was incumbent upon the supporters of the Bill to
establish three propositions. First, they were bound to
show that the prohibition of these marriages was not
required by the Word of "God ; secondly, that it was
not warranted by the tenets and principles of Christianity;
and they were bound, lastly, to show that the general
interest of society would be more advanced by the
allowance of these marriages than by their prohi-
bition. Now those were the three propositions
upon which this question must turn, and if he were in a
condition to displace all or any one of them, though the
esupporters of the Bill were bound to sustain them all, he
would have made out a case for the rejection of the measure.
Then, with regard to the Levitical law, it was contended
that there was no special injunction by which the mar-
riage reith a deceased wife's sister was forbidden by the
law of God. He did not think that an answer was ab-
solutely required to such an objection, and he was free
to confess that he did not think that the opponents of
this measure .would be likely to benefit by it if it were
made.—(Hear.) Now he would observe that the advocates
of this measure had invariably relied upon the 18th
chapter of Leviticus as an exponent of the laws
of relationship as directed by religion. When he said
that he did not mean to assert that there were any posi-
tive injunctions on the subject, but by a faithful and
careful investigation into the meaning of this portion of
God's Word it would be seen to go to the very founda-
tion of the interests of society, and that there were
abundant reasons for instituting a regulation which bore
so wrongly upon the welfare of mankind, and
which was so likely to prevent a corruption of
the morals of a people. In construing the law
which had been imposed upon the world, they were to
look rather to the scope of the whole reading than. to the
words which conveyed the particular injunction, to the
general scope, as it would be understood by the investi-
gations of an intelligent mind.—(Hear, hear.) It was a
matter of the greatest importance to families and to
society, and especially was it of importance with respect
to marriage.—(Hear, -hear.) Marriage was an in-
stitution of God's own eppointment; it created a rela-
tionship new in its character, and superior in its close-
ness, to the nearest bonds of consanguinity.—(Cheers.)
It taught that a man should leave his father anctmother
and cleave unto his wife. Was it to be presumed that
such a relationship created no degree of affinity?—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Was is to be presumed then
that if this affinity were created that it involved no
obligations similar to those of the principle out of which
it arose?—(Cheers.) Wherever the new doctrine came
from he could net tell, but he supposed it was of
American origin. If they looked carefully into this
chapter they would see that there was a reference in it
to the rules which had been established in the
househeld of Abraham, and that it was intended to re•
gul ate the law for the intercourse between the sexes—a
most imp a•tant law, and, as he had previously said,
higely important for the preservation of the national
morals.—(Hear, hear.) If he recollected rightly, not
one of the five witnesses who had been examined before
the Committee had failed to appeal to the 18th
verse of the 18 h chapter of Leviticus.— (Hear,
hear.) That he allowed was general and vague
in its meaning. but the whole of the law was con-
tained in the 6•11 verse.—(" Hear, hear" from Mr.
Goulburn and others.) That verse propounded the law
for marriage between kin and kin.—(Hear.) Now
taking that verse in its ordinary sense, he thought it
would he difficult to say that it did not impose restric-
tions upon persons brought into degrees of affinity as
well as of consanguinity.—(Hear, hear.) Several Mem-
bers of that House had stated that this rule was to be
drawn out of conclusions of common sense, but he must
contend that the matter could be settled by a reference
to God's Word, and by that word only. By a careful
observation it would be ssen that the ttictates of that
word were to be drawn as much from its silence as from
its exeressions. Thus it was said that a mother
should not marry her own sun—perhaps the most un-
natural connexion that could possibly exist—hut not
a word was said about the marriage between a father
and his own daughter. Yet this was an alliance equally
repugnant to mural feeling and all eur notions of that
which was right, and who could for a moment doubt
but that it was one totally forbidden by the law of God?
--(Cheers.) Toe Hon. Gentleman then went through
several degrees of relationship for which marriage was
forbidden by Scripture, in order to show formed
they were ineempanble with Scriptural injunction.
Preveniieg mar:iages within the degrees of affinity was
a wise transactien; it was sacred in principle and salu-
tary in its regulerien, being embodied in the world's
laws, and carried into the co e of every Christian com
munity.—(Bear, hear.) The translation of the 18sh
verse was somewhat disputed; but it was a remarkable
fact that, in thirty-four instances, the particular words
which had been referred to were translated in the ordi-
nary sense of " one to another." In other instances,
however, they had been applied to inanimate things. He
would not occupy the time of the House longer
upon the construction to be put upon Leviticus,
leaving further comment to those more conver-
sant with the details of the subject, and he would
now merely select a few of the theories which had been
put forward by those who had taken the most prominent
part in those discussions. He came now to the strong
point of the question, he meant in reference to the man-
ner in which they were to consider it under the light of
Christianity.—(dear.) The advance of human society
was very gradual. Christianity advanced civilization,
by taking up each individual man by a system of disci-
pline, and forming in him habits of virtue, and Actin,
on the atr.etions and feelings ; it provided for moral
purity ; for in the words. of the Sacred Scriptures,
" in it is a fountain open- for sin and uncleanness."
Having regard to the prohibition, how much more
respect our: ht we to have to the principles of Chris-
tianity than to the prohibition of the Jewish law.—
(Hear, hear.) Ti take an. instance, the unchaste look
was adultery under the Christian dispensation. The
purpose of Christianity was not to degraie the higher
classes down to the level of the nemo,sities of the lower
classes—(Hear)—but by acting on all by its wholesome
and genial infleences to endeaveur to draw up those
whin might be suck in spiotuelity, and to place
them on the cemman level of purity and harmony.
—(Hear and cheers.) He believed in his conscience
the tendency of this Bill was to lower the character of
the institution of marriage from that mystical union
into which Christianity had lifted it, and to destroy
that character which it was one of the objects of
Christianity to elevate and purify.—(Hear.) He ,hought
they were bound, with this view of the Christian
character of marriasee, as Christian men, to give their
votes against this all.—(Cheers.) Society, as he con-
ceived, had b-en brought forward to a certain point of
civilizition by the legitimate developement of the prin-
ciples of Christianity, and the House eats asked now to
recede from that point to which society had advanced.
Certainly the Church of Rome had not relied upon the
word of God in her prohibitions of these marriages. The
cause of this was to be found in the dispensations
which were required to be sought from her to render
these marriages valid. A dispensation was always ne-
cessary, but what did this ten-d to show? That pro-
hibition was the rule, and that a dispensation from that
prohibition was the exception. With regard to
the Irish Church, in • a canon of 790—and he
would just remark that the Irish Church was always a
pule Church, it always repudiated the erroneous doctrines
of the Papal Church, and often supplied many parts of
Europe with the means of obtaining
gthe truth—he he had
found that a man who had married in thin
affinity bad been excommunicated. But how didthe
case stand with reference to the Chnrchee of
England and Scotland. It was providential that the
true limits of this question had been settled at the
tike of the Reformation, when so many great men
had been engaged in the investigation of the truth.
What did the Commissioners mean by saying that
Creamer and others had given uninformed opinions on
this point. He would call to the minds of the
House that those were great times, that there
were giants in those days, that things were not done
is secret ; Cranmer himself challenged the Roman
disputants to a controversy ; the Universities were
rceused, the Bible was opened, and distributed
through the country. The name of Jeremy Taylor
had been mentioned; he (Mr. Napier) had in a
volume of the library of the University which he had
the honour to represent (Dublin), found a letter addressed
to a Fellow of Trinity College, in which Jeremy Taylor,
recommending different works to be studied for the
obtaining of a knowledge of doctrine, especially
refers to the canons of 1603, one of which canons
expressly states that marriage in this degree of
affinity was prohibited. In the marriage cere-
mony, too, the minister was obliged distinctly
to warn the parties that if they were within
the prohibited degree of affinity the merriege would be
illegal. Publ c opinion was decidedly against this Bill,
and it was of the highest importance that the Legisla-
ture of the country should not make that legal which the
religious feelings of the
would
great mass of the people would
at once repudiate. npassßi to the Church of
without a
Scotland, which was, singlell exception, unani-
mous in condemning this It presented one
unbroken front against it. CertaihnelTi, some members of
the legal professiontwith whom he
conversedic seemed
to doubt,
what would be the issue of a
andeusteon cn the
subject, but every clergyman,
almost say every native with whom he had spoken, had ex-
pressed pressed themselves strongly and determinedly a
Then came the Confession of Faith, which was inst it.
at Westminster, in which it was clearly laid down drawn up
such marriages as those contemplated by his Right Hun.
Friend were incestuous. They might as well attempt
to remove rocks, or prevent tee waves beating against
them, as to attempt to remove the impression enter-
tained by the Church
of Scotland on this subject,
by their puny legislation. Scotchmeu and Irishmen

were alike against this Bill, believing it calculated to un-
settle that which had been settled for ages, and because it
sought to set parties on a new cruise for social happiness,
which it asserted had not been attained before. He had
the opinion of learned men in Scotland, who stated that
they did not believe that a clergyman would be found in
that country who would perform the ceremonial of such
marriages as were contemplated by the present Bill,
thinking such marriages at variance with the Word of
God and the law of man. The Church of England
was solemnly pledged, and the Church of Scotland was
solemnly pledged, to maintain this question upon
the Word of God, which said that a man should not
marry his brother's widow or his wife's sister.—(Hear,
hear.) Who were the persons who came forward
and asked the House to set aside the law as
it at present stood, and as it at had stood for
ages? A great deal had been said about the poor. It
was not for the sake of the poor that this Bill had been
brought forward—(Hear, hear)—but for the sake of a
few interested parties.—(Hear, hear.) Persons of station
and rank in this country were the real root and basis
of the Bill—(Hear, hear)—persons who had violated the
law of man, and, as he thought ho had proved, the law
of God.—(Hear, hear.) Such parties had been put
down as unimpeachable persons; ho denied that
they could be such when they set at defiance
the law of God and man.—(Hear, hear.) Was it, he
would ask, to be said upon the evidence of sixteen
interested parties, ten witnesses, three clergymen,
and others, who had wilfully violated the law
of the land, and also the report to which he had
referred—was it to be said that upon such testimony as
that the House ought to pass a law uprooting that
which had existed for ages?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Now, with regard to America, he found there was a great
difference of opinion on the subject of the rule prevail-
ing there; bat he sincerely hoped the House nor the
public were prepared to go the length of America in
settling the great question. Now, had the Commission
furnished the House with enough information
to induce it to pass this Bill?—(Hear, hear.)
He did not think it had, and no Member
could conscientiously say that this report upon the
operation of the existing law would justify his support.
ing the Bill. It was said the social exigencies of the
poor required the passing of this Bill. Now, in Ireland
the p )or were in a worse condition, so far as home ac-
commodation was concerned, than in England; and be
was glad to say that he had never heard or known a case
of incenst in that country, where the poor of
either sex were so much mixed together. There
was a feeling of abhorrence to such a crime,
and the same feeling prevailed both in this
country and in Scotland. He admitted that all men
were not influenced by a Christian feeling, and strong
moral motives, but the majority of them were, and their
legislation upon this subject ought to be based
upon a high moral standard, for if it did
not act primarily, i; would secondly permeate
all classes of society; while, on the other hand, a low
standard would not only injure the poor, but affect the
purity of the higher classes of society.—(Hear, hear.)
Every man then was to follow his own views; justice
was to be set aside; prudence was to be set aside; mo-
rality was to be set aside; and Scripture was to be set
aside.—(Hear, hear.) Now what would be the effect of
this Bill upon females?—(Hear, hear.) Supposing a wife
were to be an invalid, and a sister, the early sharer of
her confidence, was the chief person who took her place,
what would be the case? Supposing that' this law was
passed, what would be its effects? Could she tender
those kindly and affectionate attentions which, it she
had no personal object to serve, she would, and which,
as fathers and brothers. they all knew were
so readily given to the children of her sister?—(Hear,
hear.) If this law were to be passed would it not tend
to lead to a spirit of jealousy in a wife who was upon
her deathbed, and thus embitter her last moments?
Supposing an attachment to take place, how long was
the union to be deferred? How soon after the coffin
was screwed down was the marriage to take place?—
(Hear, hear.) To interfere with this case was to inter-
fere with that which constituted one of the great mys-
teries of our nature.—(Hear, hear.) It was placing
women in a false position—it was outraging one of the
principal laws of our nature. In arguing this question,
then, he had first adverted to the great impulses
of human nature ; he had then relied upon the Levitical
law; and, lastly, he had turned to the whole practice of
the great Catholic Church, which had Christ for its head,
the Bible for its rule, and the Spirit for its sanctifier.
The Hon. Member sat down amid loud and reiterated
cheers from both sides of the Hou,:e.

The LORD Al )VOCATE said that, in rising to speak
upon this subject, he felt how great a difficulty he
laboured under in following the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tlemen who had just sat down. He felt as much as any
Hon. Member could feel the great difficulty in which the
House was placed in discussing matters which were totally
unfitted for its sphere.—(Hear, hear.) If this were a
matter to be decided simply by a reference to the Word
of God, and that word was explicit, and sufficient either
on one side or the other, there at once would, of course,
be an end to the question.—(llear, hear.) But if dart
word was not so clear, but that in this respect it '
had been subject to various iaterpretations, then he
must affirm that there was ample opportunity for the
exercise of re %son and the adjudication of judgment.
He had felt it his duty to investigate the subject in all its
lights, and having done so, he had come to the conviction
that these marriagca were not prohibited by the express
law of God.—(Hear.) It was clear to his mind, and he
would endeavour to make it so to the House, that neither
the itonaan Catholic Church, nor the Church of England.
nor even the Church of Scotland. had rendered the
law so rigidly as the lion. and Learned Gentleman
had just stated. The Church of Rome held that such
a nsarrisge was nct ineunsis:ent with the Word of
God, either expressly or impliedly. Then the
Church of England held that it was a voidable
but not a void marriage—that if it were not objected to
by certain palsies under certain circumstances, the
marriage ws,s legal as regarded all civil rights, and also
as regarded the issue of it, for the issue were of the same
blood, and inherited all estates and honours. It did
appear to him, therefore, that if the marriage was
prohibited by the law of God, either expressly or
by implication, that the law of England stood in a very
extraordinary position, for it adopted a distinction be-
tween marriages which were void and marriages which
were voidable. The law of Scotland stood in
a situation altogether different, for if a mar-
riage were against the law of God it was
void, and all issue from it were divested
of those rights which belonged to the issue of a legal
marriage. The statute law of 1567, which was now
binding in that country, contained two chapters of the
greatest importance, one of which was, that those
guilty of an union within the degrees prohi-
bited by the 18th chapter of Leviticus, should be
punished by death. The marriage was, therefore, not
only considered void, but the persons guilty of it were
liable to suffer the highest penalty of the law. During
the period that the people of Scotland were much ex-
cited upon religious matters, some very violent proceed-
ings did take place under that statute; but, with the
exception of one case, he believed that there had
been no Crown prosecution against persons who had
married within the relationship now in question.
The Church had put its own construction on the Confes-
sion of Faith of 1690. That contession of faith had bean
ratified by Parliament simply as the confession of faith
of the Church; it had not been ratified by Parliament as
giving it the full force of a civil enactment. He had care-

tully considered this mawr, and had come to the conviction
that this marriage was not prohibited by the express
words of Scripture or by any clear implication of that
word. It had been a great deal too hastily assumed on
the other side of the question that the whole religious
matter was or was not written in the 18th chapter of
Leviticus. If the marriage which this Bill sought to
legalize was held not to be prohibited by the hJok of
Leviticus, he (the Lord Advocate) did not admit that the
House were to go into the mere question of expediency,
for he found the Almighty in his revealed Word dealing
with the law of marriage, and if he had dealt with that
marriage in his olivine revealed Word, and so
as to allow that union to take place, he
(the Lord Advocate) would ask the House, in a
religious sense, what right they had to legislate on a
sanction which had come from heaven itself? If his
Hon. and Learned Friend was right in respect to his
construction of the chapter of Leviticus, and in intro-
ducing other texts of Scripture, such as that a man and
his wife were one flesh, he would find that prin-
ciple, if pushed to its full extent, did in
reality justify all those abuses of the Roman
C.tholic Church by which they prohibited all degrees,
as to the doctrine of affinity. With respect to the ex-
pediency of the case, he knew very well how very much
averse his countrymen were to the marriage which
this Bill sought to render lawful. The aversion
in which this marriage was held in Scot-
land and in Ireland were not very important
elements of the consideration on passing a law on this
subject. It' at they were not sufficient to prevent the pass-
odnote, suthhojereyct for England, as a part of the
United lag
aver sion wii
regarded e
gttrded t Scotland illearnweti
_n e
er sufficient as it
Irteillyedhieramitre.w)rraisegAess
were regarded both in Scotland
ne-
cessary to know that it proceedaed entirely
OU3 grounds. They had no aversion to stainiaremar-
ligi‘
but, considering it to be an
driiaregcetljin• prohibited by the eighteenth chapter of Le-
viticus, they hold it in the utmost abhorrence and
aversion. But we wished to recal another considera-
tion to the attention of the House; by the principles
of the Reformation the people of this country had ac-
rqeumi riendd t ht
he e exercisethat
tohfi s
w privateas a judg
questionm e nwt , h
iacnhd
whaes would
argued not only in this House, but throughout
the length and breadth of the kingdom, and
he fully believed that a conviction was growing
stronger in the land day by day, and would probably be
increased by that day's discussion, that these marriages
were not within the prohibited psle, and not contrary to
the Word:of God. The natural consequence of this
would be, that with the conviction of the illegality the
feeling of aversion towards them would depart, because
it had no other foundation. Looking at the ques-
tion in a domestic point of view, ho had no
doubt that such a Bill as this would be
highly acceptable to the higher classes of society. The
tender claims of a wife's sister, the consideration that
the orphan children should be entrusted to the care of
' the sister of their deceased parent, were all in favour of
it, but he could not consent to legislate on such grounds
as these; he must look into the middle and lower classes.
He had done so, and had found that there the question
had already been discussed; that they had been search-
ing the Scriptures, and had formed their own opinion.
They ask where is the authority on which is
founded a law which prohibits marriages which we
fled not to be contrary to God's Word. It is witli refer-
ence to the feelings of those persons that the words had
been used which the Hon. and Learned Member for the
University of Dublin had said " had taken away his
breath." The Commissioners had said that the persons
whom they had found had formed such marriages were
parsons YAW were not in the habit of violating the

laws in other respects; and were those wise laws, he
would ask, which forced persons of this class to
disobey them, which led such men as these to contrast
their views of Scripture with our legislation ? The
Honourable and Learned Member then concluded, by
apologising to the House for troubling them at such a
length.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, after the speech of the Noble
and Learned Lord, he felt himself called upon, from the
course he bad taken with respect to this Bill, to offer a
few observations. As regarded the upper class, that
Noble and Learned Lord stated that the balance
of evidence goes very much against the enac-
tion of the proposed law, and admitted that the
most powerful arguments were those which had
been used against it. But he strongly called
upon them to consider the condition of the poorer
classes. The middle and upper classes were very
much in the same position in regard to these marriages.
He had, however, failed to show that large masses of the
poor had been examining the Scriptures on this question
in order to show that the decisions of the Legislature were
wrong. In order to show the fallacy of the arguments
in favour of the Bill, he had only to call attention to
what was stated by its promoters. They said that during
a certain period 1,648 marriages within the prohibited
degree had taken place, which were divided into five
classes. In the middle class 1,503 of these marriages
had taken place, in the upper 105, and in the lower class,
constituting the bulk of the community, only 40.
The legal arguments might be very well for a court of
law, but the House had to deal with the moral and
social bearings of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He was
the la't man to severely criticise the conduct of those
who had entered into these marriages, as they had been
previously misled. Let the House bear in mind
that they were called upon to alter the law
in order to meet the requirements of a small
portion of the community. This was not a
mere question of civil liberty. In the Bill a clause had
been inserted to protect clergymen against any proceed
ings for the solemnisation of those marriages. Was that
a condition in which clergymen ought to be placed? They
were called upon to alter one of the most important laws of
the Church by a proceeding of that House. Now, he
objected to that House interpreting in what sense the
sacred law of the Church should be construed, when in
order to meet the requirements of a small portion of that
body, they were asked to put a new con-
struction upon certain of her laws.—(Hear, hear.)
He must protest against such a system, it was dangerous
to religion and to conscientious freedom.—(Hear, hear.)
Ile believed that there was a religious injunction against
the passing of this Bill, for it was opposed to the law which
had existed for upwards of 3,000 years, and it was for
sins such as this Bill contemplated the committal of that
' the people of Canaan were visited as they were.
No man could doubt, reading Leviticus strictly, that the
marriage of a man with his wife's sister was forbidden
by Scripture. The words of the 6th verse of the 18th
chapter of Leviticus, " Thou shalt not, approach to any
that is near of kin," clearly demonstrated that.
It had been said that the Jews did not exclude these
marriages; he asserted that they did, and Mr. Jenkins
stated that the traditional laws of the Jews clearly
showed that though their tendencies were to relax the
law of marriage as laid down in the Scripture,
yet that they would not tolerate a mar-
riage between a man and his wife's sister.
The prohibition contained in the law of the Jews in the
Old Testament was carried over to the New Testament
by the decree of the Apostles, and the 15th chapter of
the Aots distinctly states that a certain portion of the
institutions of the Jews were to be carried over to the
law of Christianity, and amongst those institutions were
those relating to marriages under the prohibited de-
grees. They were told by some advocates of this measure
that the civil law of the Roman empire was adverse to
thesee, mar, iages, and that the Church became adverse
to them in consequence ; but it was impossible to
make a statement more opposed to the probable
view of the case. If the Apostles did not
prohibit these marriages, it would still be ridiculous to
state that the Roman empire was the means of imposing
upon the Christian Church a stricter system with regard
to marriage than had previously existed, because it is
perfectly notorious that in the latter period of the Roman
empire, from the time of our Lord down to
the time of Constantine, the law and practice of marriage
was so exceedingly relaxed, that iocests, which were now
regarded as horrible, were then very common. Instead,
therefore, of the law of the empire having forced its
way into Christianity, the law of the empire was itself
derived from Christian principles. There could be no
doubt then that these prohibitions had existed in
the Church from the earliest ages, and the Greek
Church maintins the practice to the present day. It
was in the time of Innocent 111., when corruption was
at the highest in the Roman Church, that the practice of
ecclesiastical dispensations in cases of prohibited mar-
riages came into practice, when an example which had
been previously set by Alexander the Sixth,
one of the greatest monsters, perhaps, who bad ever
held a conspicuous situation either in the Church or the
world, was followed. Now what were the modern
authorities referred to in support of this Bill. In
the first place there was the modern practice of the
Church of Rome and certain Protestant States,
and the case of the United States of America; but in
regard to America it must be remembered that the
alteration which had been made in the law was
not of a religious character, but merely an
alteration in the legislative law relating to
the simple contract of marriage. But he did
not st,tach great weight to this change in Ame-
rica, for in certain States it had been declared law that
a married man living with an unmarried woman was
not an act of adultery; and the example of America
e as thought fit to be followed, while the Church of Rome
was too politic to make it sate to adopt the views which
it promulgated on the subject.—(Cries of " Hear.")
The Roman Catholic Church did not claim to dispense
with the law of God, but she did dispense with these
marriages between a man and his diceased wife's; sister—
ergo, these marriages were not in contradiction to the
law of God. But the question was, did that church claim
the power to dispense with the law as it is written in the
book of Leviticus? It was notorious that it did so.
And they need not look further back than the time of
henry VIIL Del or did not the Roman Catholic
Church claim to dispense with the law as it is written in
the book of Leviticus for prohibiting the marriage between
a man and the sister of his deceased wife?—(Hear,
hear.) They all knew what the fact was. For with
regard to the great section of the Eastern Christian
Church, was it not evident to all who knew that Charch,
that such marriages were forbidden by it?—(Hear.) The
truth was that these marriages were forbidden by five-
sixths of the whole of Christendom.—(Hear.) Now he
would return to the great social aspect of the question.
He had heard a powerful appeal to the affections, on
the ground that the children of a deceased wife
were most likely to meet with affection and kind-
ness from her sister. He would respond to that
appeal, and, on the ground of that appeal, he would
assert that upon it, it upon no other grounds whatever,
he would say that this law ought not to be passed.—
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the lower classes, he
would state his belief that it would be instrumental, in
the highest degree, to reduce their social state and im-
pair their happiness.—(Hear, hear.) This Biil went to
impair all the social relations it struck at the foun-
dations of society; it confused the conjugal with the
sisterly aff, ctions.—(Hear, hear.) It reduced those at=
fections which were of the purest and the highest order
and: rendered them in their power minute and almost
imperceptible.—(Hear, hear.) Then it should be recol-
lected that there was another class which was likely to
be affected by this law—that was the class of married
men who were not widowers.—(Hear, hear.) Only let
them think how the position of such persons would be
complicated by the passing of this law, and what diffi-
culty they were likely to be placed in—how they would
be compelled to forego the assistance of those who,
from their sisterly affections, ought, under peculiar cir-
cumstances, to be the greatest comfort and relief to
the m.—(ll,?ar, hear.) Looking then at the whole of
these circumstances, and considering the law as it now
stood had been the law of the Christian Church for three
thousand years, and that it was calculated to strike at the
very foundations of society, he thought it could bo pro-
ductive of no benefit whatever at all proportionate to the
mischiefs which it was calculated to work.—(Hear.)
There was but one other point which he was desirous
to urge. If this Bill was passed where was this
legislation to stop ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Did his Hon. Friend (Mr. S. Wortley) mean to take his
stand upon the Scriptures? If he did he left open to
them three cases of incest which were conspicuous among
all others—one with the mother, the second with the
daughter, • and the third with the sister, and
of those, incest with the mother was the
only one prohibited by special mention in Leviticus.
If then he could not rely upon Leviticus, or upon social
expediency, would he stand by the law of nature ? He
thought not, although he was free to admit that the
very mention of such cases would occasion a sentiment
of horror in the breast of every man.—(Hear hear.)
If they allowed the Bill to pass, they would
be assailed with serious charges which would
lower the tone of the law under which they now lived.—
(Hear, hear.) He hoped the House would therefore re-
spect the unanimous sentiment of a large portion of the
country and reject the Bill. On social grounds he trusted
they
wama iravm.opsuo.lsdewdmoba iyinrrtt ahLienEo
obligations
rose
tpeioatniorsel :oefptlthyha.et
mNs tar iortrcwitanigtehesssttiaewh
Notwithstanding
dh
iinc g
the very able speeches of Mr. Napier and Mr. Glad-
stone, he still maintained that opinion with respect to
this question which he had expreosfseLona former occasion.
Dr. Philpot, one of the heads
tiliasdessiatnCedamthberidg?,
and not any relative of the Bishop,
peti-
tion.—(Laughter.) He' had listened • attentivelyg to the
ingenious speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone), but he had forgotten, notwithstanding he
had read the Scriptures carefully, this important
fact, that the Author of Christianity bad
said, " Those whom God hath joined together let
no man put asunder." Now those who opposed the Bill
held that those who married deceased's wives' sisters
should be put asunder.—(Hear, hear.) It was presump-
tion
ot appealed to
them to pass this Bill on the grounds, Chris-
tianity,Whh the influence
tion in the highest degree to
bsr9oyads°.ile
rs could still be exercised.
of the Church, whose powers
b tt• h 1 ort y
The Rig • ht Hon. Gentleman, after com a ing
for it would not interfere
concluded by expressing a hope
that the House would assent to the se
against the measure, conc
second reading of
with several of the other arguments that had been used
the Bill.
moment for conscience
t for the second
sake.—(A. laugh.) He was anxious to vo e
Colonel THOMPSON rose amid load cries of "Di.
vide.* He only wished for one mom
•
'n the Bill with
reading of the Bill, but could only do !so upon the
understanding that all the provisions
respect to a deceased wife's brother's daughter would
be struck out of the Bill in Committee.—(A laugh.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reciting 177'
Against it 143
.lajority for the second rending

C.A.267211.23.
. ~,l
Names of le. !Dividend), Price. Names of 13 Dividend'
Companies. A i
Annum. per Companies. Oa" \ per Price,
...: Annum. c
---- - - - --- -
£ £1
Ashtn& Oldh 97 71. - Macclesfield . 100 21. 108. -
Barnsley.. • • 160, 121. 180 Neath ••• •• • 1001 181. -
Urknk&Abrg 150; 5/. 85 Oxford.. •• • • 100 201. -
Birmingham 35 41. B_2
sPweeva;kreß,Forest.taani
gi.. 1247658 I 31. 188. -
Covent r y . . . . 1001 25/. 21030
sßhergeewntsb'su.r.y.... 33 1/. ss. 18
Derby -• • - 1001' 61. 63 Rochdale.. .• 85 41. 54
Ellsinre&Chs 133 565.
34105114
WSoamrrwsiectklolal
Erewash •• • 100; 321. - Do.LkFd St 12 61. p. c. -
GrandJunctn 100 5/. 83 Stard &Wore 140' 28/. 310
orcsAtrm&oultll 72/11..510105.. 130:
rand Surrey 100 21.
,irand Union 100 11. 10s. 24 Stourbrid 201. 3CO
Grantham - 150 -
IC.l,eeenansts,&LAi„viirp ;
10039 783.061. d.
Leicester .... 140 51. 63% Birming. j 100 41. 57%
r•tticstr &Nth 83 41. 45 Warwick&
Lou4hborogh , 142 701. 650 Napton-} 100 ".
41
Antgenarysla 100 -
Monmouthsh' 100
81.
Dividend Amount
- Birming.i 78 21. 41
MeßnMwbry.loo - - Wilts & Brks - 11. 10
I.ISF OF SCOTTISEL COMPANIES' PRICES
_
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price,
Annum. Share.
£ s. d. i X s. d
Bank of Scotland ..... 71. per cent. 100 0 0 ,100 0 0 169
3ritish Linen Company Si. per cent. 100 0 0 1100 0 0 2021
Caledonian Bank ••• • • 8 per sent. 10 0 0 ' 210 0 31. 18
City of Glasgow Bank . 61. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 113
jlydesdale Bank -•••- 6% per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0 127,
Commercial Bank •• - 71. per cent. 500 0 0 ;100 0 0 160
Eastern Bank •••• • • • • 61. per cent. 25 u 0 16 0 C 91. 7s
Edinb.g& Glasgow Bank 6/. per cent. 50 0 5 0 0 5%
Exehange Bnk of Scot.. 41. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 0 273
Isle of Man. Company 71. per cent. 10 0 0 7 0 0 -
National Bank ...... _ 634 per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 14'
North of Scotland Bank 4/.percent. 20 0 0 5 0 0 31.05.
North British Bank • • -
Royal Bank of Scotland 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 124
Union Bank of Scotland 81. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 0 80
Western Bank •••• • • • • 81. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 73%
.A.ber leen Fire and Life 7341. pr cent. 12 10 0 20 e 2%
B. Accord. Life and Fire - 20 0 0 010 0 -
British Guarantee Ins. 4/. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 9s 6d
Caledonian -Fire Insur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 21
Church of England Ins. - 50 0 0 2 0 0 2
City of Glasgow Life.. 61. per cent. 25 0 0 2 0 0 21. 7s
g•linburgh Life Insur. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 12 10 0 183¢'
East of Scotland Life.. _ 10 0 0 015 0 9s.od.
Eng. & Scot, Law Life 51. per cent. 50 0 0 217 6 -
aercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
(flaw. Co. of Scetlnd•• 51. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
Life Assoc. of Scotland h/. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 ' 11. 6s
Mercantile Life - .... 4/. per cent. 10 0 0 010 0 ;3s. 6d.
National Fire and Life 5/. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 ,20s. 6d
North British Insnr... 5%1.pr cent. 200 0 0 20 0 0 1 2234
North & West of Scot. 61. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 ,1711.6 d
Scottish Life and Guar. - 20 0 0 0 11 0 ' -
I
scot. Mas. and Gen. Life - 10 0 015 0 -3cottish Union Insrnce. 641. pr cent. 20 0 0 10 0 ' 11. 2s
Stan lard Life ........ 51. per cent. 50 0 0 5 0 9U
United Dep. Assurance 51. per cent. 10 0 0 0 148.6 d
MISCELLANEOUS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price,
Annum. Share.
-
X. s. d. X. s. 5.
Australian Agriculturl - 100 0 0 30 0 0 16
Anglo-Mexican Mint.. 11. 4s. 10 0 0 10 0 0 -
Ditto. Half Shares.. - - 2 10 0
Canada ... • • ........ GI. per cent. 100 0 0 32 10 0 31
Uppr Canada Bonds 51. per,cent. - - 70
City Navigation .... - - - 90%
Comp. C ppr Mars Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 70 0 0 -
Gen. Revers. & Invest. sp. c.& bs, 2/ 100 0 0 100 0 0 90
Equitable Reversionry 51. pr cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 100
Gen. Steam Navigation 11.8 s. 15 0 0 114 0 0 22
London Institution ... - - 78 15 0 -
Russell Institution.... - - 26 5 0 3
Peninslr& Orient.Stm. 81. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 70
Reversionary Int. Soc. 4141. pr cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 92
Royal Mail Steam- - 61 18..4. p. c. 1(10 0 0 60 0 0 4934
South Australian ..... 11. per share. 25 0 0 25 0 0 16
Van Dieman's Land.. - 100 0 0 123 0 0 ' 134

THE BRAZILS. SOUTHAMPTON, WEDNESDAY.d
The Swedish brig, Alphild, Captain Wahlmann, arrived
off Cowes, Isle of Wight, last evening for orders, and
we have received by her advices from Rio de Janeiro to
the Ist May, with the Jornal do Commcrcio to April 30,
a few days later news than by the last arrival. Mercan-
tile affairs have undergone little change; the movement
to California still continued, and several vessels were on
the berth loading for San Francisco. Exchange on
London, 25k; on Paris, 375 to 380; Haniburgh, 680 to
685. Spanish doubloons were, 31,700 to 31,900; Patriot
doubloons, 31,000; Spanish dollars, 1,980 to 2,000. The
Six per Cent. Brazilian Stocks were firm at 87i to 88.
Freights were quoted as follows:—Antwerp, 325. 6d. to
455.; to English Channel, ;355.; Hamburgb, 325. 6d.;
United States, 505.; Havre, 40 francs; Liverpool, 45a.;
London, 405.; Marseilles, 325. 6d.; Trieste, 355. The
latest dates in Rio de Janeiro from the provinces had
been received by the steamer San Sebastian as follows:
Para, 24th of March; Maranham, 30th of March; Per-
namhueo, 13th of April; and Bahia, 18th of April; up
to which time the respective departments enjoyed pro-
found tranquillity. At Bahia the exchange on London
was 27, and at Pernambuco 27k. There is no political
news of importance.
COUNTY 'CESS IN IRELAND.—A return obtained by
Sir Robert Ferguson, M.P. for Londonderry. shows
that the grand total amount of county cess in Ireland,
remaining unpaid at the late spring assizes amounted to
136 286/. 14s. 2d.

How much pain have those evils cost us that have
never happened.--. Eliza Cook's Journal.