The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-20 00:00:00

Tlt SUN,

State, and that principle had in effect been
lully recoAniled. What constituted a British
sh'p was that three fourths of her crew should
be British seamen ; but the House was going
to change that principle in regard to the build u the
vessel. What he wished to be assured of was, if we
could claim under our treaties, as they stood, that such
vessels when registered as British vessels would be
entitled to the privileges of our treaties with foreign

such a relationship created no degree of affinity?—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Was i':, 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 not 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
household of Abraham, and that it was intended to re-
gulate the law for the intercourse between the sexes-7a
must important law, and, as he had previously said,
highly important for the preservation of the national
morals.—(Bear, 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
chapter.—(Hear, hear.) That he allowed was ge
neral and vague in its meaning, but the whole of the
law was contained in the 6th verse.—(" 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 be 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 Huuse had stated that this rule was to be
drawn out of conclusions of common sense, but he must
contend Chet the matter could be settled by a reference
tosGod's Word, and by that word only. By a careful
observation it would be seen that the dictates of that
word were to be drawn as much from its silence as from
its expressions. Thus it was said that a mother
should not marry her own son—perhaps the most un-
natural connexion that could possibly exist—but not
a word was said about the marriage between a father
and his own daughter. Yet this was an alliance equally
repugnant to moral feeling and all cur 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.) The Hon. Gentleman then went through
several degrees of relationship fur which marriage war
forbidden by Scripture, in order to show if formed
they were incompatible with Scriptural injunction.
Preventing marriages within the degrees of affinity was
a wise transaction; it was sacred in principle and salu-
tary in its regulation, being embodied in the world's
laws, and carried into the code of every Christian corn
munity.—(Bear, hear.) The translation of the 18th
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-
aer in which they were to consider it under the light of
Christianity.—(gear.) 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 acting
on the affections 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, bow much more
respect ought we to have to the principles of Chris.
tianity than to the prohibition of the Jewish law.—
(Hear, hear.) To take an instance, the unchaste look
was adultery under the Christian dispensation. The
purpose of Christianity was not to degrade the higher
classes down to the level of the necessities of thelowe r
classes—(Hear)—but by acting on all by its wholesome
and genial influences to endeavour to draw up those
who might be sunk in spirituality, and to place
them on the common 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 bad lifted it, and to destroy
that character which it was one of the objects of
Christianity to elevate and purify.—(Hear.) He thought
they were bound, with this view of the Christian
character of marriage, as Christian men, to give their
votes against this Bill.—(Cheers.) Society, as he con-
ceived, bad been brought forward to a certain point of
civilization by the legitimate developement of the prin-
ciples of Christianity, and the House was 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 tend 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
pure Church, it alwa) a repudiated the erroneous doctrines
of the Papal Church, and often supplied many parts of
Europe with the means of obtaining the truth—he had
bound that a man who had married in this degree of
affinity had been excommunicated. But how did the
case stand with reference to the Churches of
England and Scotland. It was providential that the
true limits of this question bad been settled at the
time 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
in secret ; Cranmer himself challenged tho Roman
disputants to a controversy ; the Universities were
routed, 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 Tay lox.,
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
expre,sly states that marriage in this c'egree 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 marriage would be
illegal. Public 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 great mass of the people would
at once repudiate. He would pass to the Church of
Scotland, which was, without a single exception, unani-
mous in condemning this Bill. It presented one
unbroken front against it. Certainly, some members of
the legal professioniwith whom he bad conversed seemed
to doubt what would be the issue of a discussion on the
subject, but every clergyman, and he might
almost say every native with whom he had spoken, had ex-
pressed themselves strongly and determinedly against it.
Then came the Confession of Faith, which was drawn up
at Westminster, in which it was clearly laid down that
such marriages as those contemplated by his Right Hon.
Friend were incestuous. They might as well attempt
to remove rocks, or prevent the 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. Scotchmen 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 fur 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 clergy man 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
Gud arid 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 raid 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 pour 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 he had proved, the law
of God.—(Hear, hear.) Such parties had been put
down as unimpeachable persons, he 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
regard existed
to forAmerica,age
thatl,,,_.lh.o_wch,thwitandllouse ought to pass a law uprooting that
difference of opinion on theshu(ebCjfe°rciutels
iodfo;ht the e rule "Hear,wa
public were prepared to go s?
settling the great haeganre.:)t
hoped the House nor the
prevail-
ing there; bat he sincerely hoped
length of Ameri.ca. in
furnished the House question.
with enough
had the Commission
h eo hear.)
trli(Uar,
a?ugh information
to i
inddiudce
net
tt ttohiopkass
it
bad,
and
nMember
o the
this
1
ceuld conscientiously say that this report upon
operation of the existing law would justify his support-
ing the Bill. It was said the social exigencies of the
pour required the passing of this Bill. Now, in Ireland
the p ior were in a worse condition, so far as home ac
commodation was concerned, than in England; and he
was glad to say that be 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 it fluenced by a Christian feeling, and strong
nalral motives, but the majority of them were, and their
legislation upon this subject
if i ought to bet based
d
upon a high moral standard, fur d
permeate
cot act primarily, it would secondly
standard would not only injure the poor, ut affect the
all classes of society, while, on the other- bad,
a low
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; sen-
suality 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 posed would it not tend

states.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he was sure the Honour-
able Gentleman would excuse him if he declined to answer
questions of legal construction put to him across the
table of the House. He could only say, with regard to
the Navigation Bill just passed into a law, that he had
asked the House to defer those alterations for some
months, in order that such questions as this might be
fully considered.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
Mr. 1101.-{SMAN said, the House had not yet received
the amendment to the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill
which had been promised. There had been very distinct
and repeated pledges given to Parliament on the subject
of this measure; and if they were not kept it would he a
great violation of the faith of Parliament. He should
ask the House to express its opinion upon that breach
of faith in the face of the House.
Sir G. GREY thought it was extremely inconvenient
that these questions should be continually put. With
regard to the amendments he had hardly seen them

Mr. HORSMAN wished to know when the Bill with
the amendments would be delivered to Members?
Sir G. GREY, after consulting with one or two of
the Members around him, said that the Bill with the
amendments had been delivered that morning.
Mr. HOUSMAN said that he had not received it.
The dropped orders were then reappointed.
THE " COUNT OUT."
Mr. GLADSTONE, adverting to the " count out" of
the 'louse last night, and the observations of the Noble
Earl the Member for Falkirk (Lord Lincoln). said that
he felt convinced that his Noble Friend. in what he had
stated, had no intention to impute to the Government
any desire to get rid of the question that he had brought
before the House last night, but at the same time he
must confess that it was a most unfortunate occurrence.
—(Laughter.) He regretted the absence of the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Sunderland, who last night
counted out the House, and also that of the Noble Lord
the Member for Eve.ham, who he must consider was
instrumental in counting it out. He trusted that,
considering the importance of the subject brought under
the consideration of the House by his Noble Friend last
night, the Government would name some day for the

renewal of the debate and concluding the question.
Mr. LABOUCHERE was not able to give the Righ
Hon. Gentleman • any assurance on the subject in the
a.bsence of his Noble Friend at the head of the Govern-
ment. He (Mr. Labouchere) regretted as much as the
Right Hon. Gentleman did the untimely end the discus-
sion came to last night—(Great laughter)—as he believed
no time was gained by it. But he must protest against
the doctrine that it was the special duty of the Govern-
ment to keep a House on such subjects.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of LINCOLN had never said it was.
Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that there were no less
than seven Members of the Government present at the
time the House was counted out.—(Hear, hear.) He
entirely denied on the part of the Government any in-
tention to count out the House.—(Hear.)
Mr. TRELAWNY said that he had come down for
the purpose of assisting in making a House, and he muat
contess that he was greatly astonished at not finding the
Noble Earl the Member fur Falkirk in his place.
The Earl of LINCOLN admitted that he was not
present when the House was made in consequence of
being detained by a person who had called upon him at
the last moment. He had never said that it was
the duty of the Government to take care to make a
House.—(Hear, hear.) What he did say was, that an
attempt was made to prevent a House being made by
one of the officials of the Government. Added to
which, he had stated that there was only one
Member of the Government present when the
House was made. What he complained of was,
that a Member of that House, and one of the
officials of the Government had endeavoured to pre-
vent the House being made, and had also whipped
out the House in order that it might bo counted out.—
(Laughter.) He did not think that any member of the
Cabinet had any wish to do what had been done, but—
[At this moment Lord Marcus Hill entered the
House amid much cheering and great laughter.]
The Earl of Lincoln said, as the Noble Lord had
just entered the House, he would repeat his charge—
that it was through his instrumentality that the House
was counted eut.
Lord MARCUS HILL said that be bad taken no
open measures whatever—(Great laughter)—to have
the House counted out. An Hun. Member had told
him of his intention to count out the House, and he
certainly must confess that he had taken no steps to
dissuade him from :t.—(Great laughter.)
The Earl of LINCOLN begged to ask the Noble
Lord whether he had not told an Honourable Member,
previous to the House being made, mot to go into the
House, as it was going to be counted.—(Laughter.)
Lord MARCUS HILL observed that he might have
said so, but he did nut see how any inference could be
drawn from that, that it was his wish the House should
not he made.—(Great laughter.)
Mr.SLANEY trust( d that in future they would be able
to commence important discussions and conclude them,
without the House being counted out. He must confess,
however, that he had seen the H, .use counted out upon far
more important questions to tce people of this country
than that of the grant of Vancouver's Island to the
Hudson's Bay Company.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY deplored the House being counted
out last night on such an important subject. It was
unjust, in his opinion, to the Under-Secretary for the
Colutdes.—(Hear, hear )
Mr. ADDERLEY thought the lion. Gentleman the
Secretary for the Colonies would find it to his conve-
nience that the delay had occurred, but the counting
out would Certainly have the ((Tact of convincing the
country that neither the House nor the country took any
interest in ccl nial matters.
Mr. V. SMITH did not think it wise to get
rid of the privilege of counting cut, as such an
cccurrence as that of last night would induce the country
to believe that the House took no interest. in colonial
matters, and they would believe what was per-
fectly true. This system then was the only
way by which constituencies could ascertain
how their representatives were disposed towards
particular questions, and as that would serve as some
guide for their future election, he hoped the privilege
would be continued.
After a few words Mr. S. WORTLEY and Mr. HAWES,
Mr. HUME said he took a different view of this mat-
ter to those ,of the Honourable Members who
had already spoken upon it.—(llear, hear.) His
opinion was, that no business should be taken in
the House unless 200 Members were present.—(Hear,
hear.) Not that he approved of the proceedings of last
night, or of the course taken by the Hun. Baronet who
moved that the House be counted, and who seemed to
have no other object in attending his Parliamentary
duties but mooting that question.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) If he could have his way he would
have a rule established empowering the clerk
at the table to state that there was not a sufficient Lum-
ber of Members present to carry on the business of the
House whsn more than half the Members were absent,
and then there would be a prospect of their securing
the return of men who would attend to the business of
the House, and not come there simply to vote and make
a noise towards the close of a night's proceedings.
The debate was then adjourned till Friday.
MARRIAGES BILL.

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 or 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 dit.cussed. It was stated
in 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 greet
measure founded upon a vague and uninformed notion of
the impolicy of the Bill, but for his part he concurred
with the great mass of the petitions presented against
the Bill, that it was opposed to the Scriptures as well as
opposed to sound social policy, that induced the public to
plit)t. it. It was said by the supporters of the Bill
that it was not of a compulsory character—that it left the
m
ixualetstste.tuari
ognt omotafhrerei,algosenessi cewineecnrecee
ietoo
concerned;
wc eearasne herd, individual so far as
whether a restriction Of libertym was,;
rather
hl ebutrr thisrequired
u ewd questiona s not od tut
of
regard to the exigencies and
supporters
wants of society.
theyes ofw etrheebeßill to
It was incumbent upon the svuimt,
vivanBclntoot
establish three propositions.
show that the prohibition of these marriages
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 wouldtheir be more advanced bythie.
allowance of these marriages than byprohi-
bition. Now those were the three. propositions
yt turn,on one
ofand
them,.f he
though
were int ae
condition twi ohni tho thisdisp LIC
e;
all Lion o rmauns
supporterswouih ave ofm at
dh
ee
oßuitl la
cwaes. reef
obro sustain ionf
tth
ee
mm
eaalsl
u,
rhee.
Then, with regard to the Levitical law, it was contended
tuhned rejectionto s u
that there was no special injunction by which the mar-
riage with 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 fur instituting a regulation which bore
so strongly for 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, bear.) Marriage was an in-
stitution of God's own appointment; it created a rela-
tionship new in its character, and superior in its close-
io the nearest bonds of consanguinity.—(Cheers.)
" that a man should leave his father and mother
-se his wife. Was it to be presumed that

T. -

to lead to a spirit of jealously in a wife wh,o was upon !those relating to marriages under the prohibited de
her deathbed, and thus embitter her last moments? I grees. They were told by some advocates of this measure
Supposing an attachment to take place, bow long was that the civil law of tee Roman empire was adverse to
the union to be deferred? How soon after the coffin these mar sages, and that the Church become adverse
was screwed down was the marriage to teke place?— to them in consequence; but it was impossible to
(Hear, hear.) To interfere with this case was to inter- make a statement more opposed to the probable
fere with that which constituted one of the great mys- view of the case. If the Apostles eid not
teries of our nature.—(Hear, hear.) It was placing prohibit these marriages, it would still be ridiculous to
women in a false position—it was outraging one of the state that the Roman empire was the means of imposing
principal laws of our nature. In arguing this question, upon the Christian Church a stricter system with regard
then, he bad first adverted to the great impulses to marriage than had previously existed, because it is
of human nature ; he had then relied upon the Levitical perfectly notorious that in the latter period of the Rowan
law; and, lastly, he;,hadJurned to the whole practice of empire, from tee time of cur Lord down to
the Church, not a small fraction of that Church the the time:of Constantine, the law and practice of marriage
Catholic Church, which had Christ at its head, the Bible was so exceedingly relaxed, that incests, which were new
in its hand, and had reason for its guide. The Hon. regarded as horrible, were then very ten men. Instead,
Member sat down amid loud and reiterated cheers from therefore, of the law of the empire having forced its
both sides of the House. way into Christianity, the law of the empire was itself
The LORD.ADVOCATE said that, in rising to'speak derived fram Christian principles. There could be no
upon this subject, he felt how great a difficulty he doubt then that these prohibitions had existed in
laboured under in following the Hon. and Li arned Gen- the Church from the earliest ages, arid the Greek
tlenien who had just sat down. He felt as much as any Church maintins the practicii to the present day. It
Hon. Member could feel the great difficulty in which the was in the time of Innocent., when corruption was at
House was placed in discussing matters which:were totally the highest in the Roman Church, that the practice of
unfitted for its sphere.—(Hear, hear.) If this were a ecclesiastical dispensations in cases of prohibited mar-
matter to be decided simply by a reference to the Word riages came into practice, when an example which had
of God, and that word was explicit, and sufficient either been previously set by Alexander the Sixth,
on one side or the other, there at once would, of course, one of the greatest monsters, perhaps, who had ever
be an end to the question.—(Bear, hear.) But if thr t held a conspicuous situation either in the Church or the
word was not so clear, but that in this respect it world.—(tieur, hear.) low what were the modern
had been subject to various interpretations, then he authorities referred to in support of this Bill. In
must affirm that there was ample opportunity for the the first place there was the modern practice of the
exercise of reason and the adjudication of judgment. Church of Rome and certain Protestant States,
He had felt it his duty to investigate the subject in ail its and the case of the United States of America; but'in
lights, and having done so, he had come to the conviction regard to America it must be remembered that The
that these marriages were not prohibited by the express alteration which had been made in the law was
law of God.—(Hear.) It was clear to his mind, and he not of a religious character, but merely an
would endeavour to make it so to the House, that neither alteration in the legislative law relating to
the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Church of England, the simple contract ot marriage. But he did
nor even the Church of Scotland, bad rendered the not attach great weight to this change of Attie-
law so rigidly as the lion. and Learned Gentleman rice, for in certain States it had been declared law that
had just stated. The Church of Rome held that such a married man living and sleeping with an unmarried
a marriage was net inconsistent with the Word of woman was not an act of edultery; and the example of
God, either expressly or impliedly. Then the America was fit to be followed, while the attach of Rome
Church of England held that it was a voidable, was too politic to make it safe to adopt the views which
but not a void marriage—that it it were not objected to it promulgated on the subject.—(Cries of " Hear.")
by certain parties under certain circumstances, the The Roman Catholic Church did not claim to dispense
marriage was legal as regarded all civil rights, and also with the law of God, but she did dispense with these
as regarded the issue of it, for the issue were of the same marriages between a man and his diceased wife's: sister—
blood, and inherited all estates and honours. It did ergo, these marriages were not in contradiction to the
appear to him, therefore, that if the marriage was law of God. But the question was, did that church claim
prohibited by the law of God, either expressly or the power to dispense with the law as it is written in the
by implication, that the late of England stood in a very book of Leviticus? It was notorious that it did so.
extraordinary position, for it adopted a distinction be- And
,they need not look further back than the time of
iween marriages which were void and marriages which Henry VIII. Rd or did not the Roman Catholic
were voidabl. The law of Scotland stood in Church claim to dispense with the law as it is written in
a situation altogether different, for if a mar- the bunk of Leviticus for prohibiting the marriage between
riage were against the law of God it was a man and the sister of his deceased wife?—(Hear,
void, and all issue from it were divested hear.) They all knew what the tact was. For w el:
of those rights which belonged to the issue of a legal regard to the. great section of the Eastern Christian
marriage. The statute law of 1567, which was now Church, was i.of evident to all who knew that Church,
binding in that country, contained two chapters of the that such marriages were forbidden by it?—(Heer.) The
greatest importance, one of which was, that those truth was that these marriages were forbidden by five-
guilty of an union within the degrees prohi- sixths of the whole of Christendom.—(Hear.) Now he
bited by the 18th chapter of Leviticus, should be would return to the great social aspect of the question.
punished by death. The marriage was, therefore, not lie bud heard a powerful appeal to the affections, on
only considered void, but the persons guilty of it were the ground that the children of a deceased wife
Liable to suffer the highest penalty of the law. During were most likely to meet with effection and kind-
the period that the people of Scotland were much ex- ness from her sister. He would respond to that
cited upon religious matters, some very violent proceed• appeal, and, on the ground of that appeal, he would
ings did take place under that statute; but, with the assert that upon it, it upon to other grounds whatever,
exception of one case, he believed that there had he would say that this law ought not to be passed.—
been no Crown prosecution against persons who had (neer, hear.) With respect to the lower classes, he
married within the relationship now in question. would state his belief that it would be instrumental, in
The Church had put its own construction on the Confes the highest degree, to reduce their social state and ins
sion of Faith of 1690. That confession of faith had been fair their happiness.— (Hear, hear.) This Bill went to
ratified by Parliament simply as the confession of faith impair all the secisl relations ; it struck at the fowl-
of the Church; it had not been ratified by Parliament as da ion of society ; it confused the conjugal with the
giving it the full force of a civil enactment. Ile had care- sisterly Of ctions.—(Hear, hear.) It seduced those at-
fully considered this matter, and hadcerne to the conviction fectious which were of the purest and tee highest order
that this marriage was not prohibited by the express and rendered them in their power minute atid almost
words of Scripture or by any clear implication of that imperceptible.—(hear, hear.) Then it, should be recut-
word. It had been a great deal too hastily assumed on lected that, there was another class which was likely to
the other side of the question that the whole religious be affect( dby this law—that was the class of ntirrieti
matter was or was not written in the 18th chapter of men who were not widowers.—(Hear, hear) Only let
Leviticus. If the marriage which this Bill sought to them thirds how the position of such persons would be
legalize was held not to be prohibited by the book of complicated by the passing of this law, and what ditli-
Leviticus, he (the Lord Advocate) did not admit that the culty:they were likely to be placed in—how they would
House were to go into the mere question of expediency, be compelled to forego the essistenve of those who,
for he found the Almighty in his revealed Word dealing from their sisterly aff ctions, ouget, under peculiar car
with the law of marriage, and if he had dealt with that cueastances, to be the greatest comfort and relief to
marriage in his divine revealed Word, and se them.—(Hear, hear.) Looking then at the whole of
as to allow that union to take place, he these circumstances, and considering the law as it now
(the Lord Advocate) would ask the House, in a stood had been the law of the Christian Church for three
religious sense, what right they hsd to legislate on a thousand years, that it was calculated to strike at the
sanction which had come from:heaven itself? If his very foundations of society, and that it could be pro-
Hon. and Learned Friend was right in respect to his ductive of no benefit whatever at all proportionate to the
construction of the chapter of Leviticus, and in intro- mischiefs weich it was calculated to work.--(Hear.)
ducing other texts of Scripture, such as that a man and There was but one other point which he was desirous
his wife were one flesh, he would find that prin- to urge. If this Bill was passed where was this
ciple, if pushed to its full extent, did in legislation to stop ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
reality justify all those abuses of the Roman Did his Hon. Friend (ma S. Wortley) mean to take: his
Catholic Church by which they prohibited all degrees, stand upon the actiptur, s? If he did he left open to
as to the doctrine of affinity. With respect to the ex• them three cases of incest which were conspicuous among
pediency of the case, he knew very well how very much all others—one with the mother, the second with the
averse his country men were to the marriage which
Io
tn,
ltyhe daughter,onn e prohibited
he
could
o
and
uld
n
ythet re
specialthirdu po upon
Leviticus, withm
vei
tni
etitheuo
s' or nin Leviticus.
sister,
upon
po n
social
anal ,
this Bill sought to render lawful. The aversion of those. incest with the mother was the
in which this marriage was held in Scot-
tand and in Ireland were not very important
elements of the consideration on passing a law on this expediency, would he stand by the law of nature ? He
subject. It they were nut sufficient to prevent the pass- thought not, although he was free to admit that the
ing of a law on the subject for England, us a part of the.,l
(Iblve‘
Ht(i
37,w. reych:acrtm,
sh,rtsreehh,*yeneei
rltacitrod:. mention
el of
allowed
eheut
hdchhehor
episctaaceahewrdsetieotusuehnsefwd
Bill(eHo, rvcuoehll
vurdathysoreigoe
imhcw!scaoata,sieulese.i:doywntnht:
ilaiiiiiivseyheeelitraiovtrw,
tievemdooeuur.
hear.)nitddt
United Kingdom, they were not sufficient as it
regarded Scotland or Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
regarded the aversion with which these marriages
were regarded both in Scotland and Ireland, it was ne-
geseary to know that it proceeded entirely from religi-
ous grounds. They had no aversion to such a mar- spect the unanimous sentiment of a large p.ertion of the
riage in itself ; but, considering it, to be an union country aidreject the Bill. On social grounds he trusted
directly prohibited by the eighteenth chapter of Le- they would maintain unimpaired that strictness which
viticus, they hold it in the utmost abhorrence and was imposed by the obligations of the marriage tie.
aversion.; But we wished to recal another considers- Mr. S. W 01tTLEY rose to reel;'. Notwitnstanding
tiuu to the attention of the House; by the principles the very able speeches of Mr. Napier and Mr. Glad.
of the Reformation the people of this country had ac stone, he still maintained that opinion with respect to
quired the exercise of private judgment, said he would this question which he had expressed on a formeroccafien.
remind them that this was a question which was being Dr. rtillpot, one of the heads of houses at Cambridge,
argued not only in this House, but throughout and not any relative of the Bishop, had signed the peti
the length and breadth of the kingdom, and tion.—(Laughter.) He hail lis,ened attentively to the
he fully believed that a conviction was growing ingenious speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
stronger in the land day by day, and would probably be Galadsrtoenade),
the Sc
but hehriapdtefroers eu
forgotten, notwithstanding
thistwith importantstand
inghe
increased by that day's discussion, that these marriages lead
were not within the prohibited pale, and not contrary to tact, that the Author of Christianity hail
the Word of God. The natural consequence of this said, " Those wheel] God hash joined together 1 t
would be, that with the conviction of the illegality the no man put asunder." Now these who opposed the Bill
feeling of aversion towards them would depart, because held that those who married deceased's wives' sisters
ittiehnadieno a other
domestic
,il,ifoundation.fa ,
points siLookingcon
consideration
dt e
rtahtei 0
nq ut
he sa -t should be put asunder.—(Hear, hear) It was preetimp
of view, he had no tion in the highest degree to say so. He appealed to
this would be them to pass this Bill on the broad grounds
sot Chris-
doubt that such
gßhisel sister, rc,: aaths e° s of
seciety. The tinnily, for it would not interfere with the. inflaenco
tender claims of a of the Church, whose powers could still be exercised.
I highly acceptable to thae hi
the orphan children should be entrusted to the care of The Right Hon. Gentleman, after combating shortly
the sister of their deceased parent, were all in favour ref with several ot the oth r arguments that had been used
it; but he could not consent to legislate on such grounds against the measure, concluded by expressing a hope
as these •he must look into the middle and lower classes. that the House would assent to the second reading of
He had ;lone so, and had found that there the question the Bill.
had air ady been discussed; that they had been search- Colonel THOMPSON rose amid loud criss of
ing the Scriptures, and bad formed their own opinion. " Divide." He only wished for one moment for cone
They ask where is the authority on which is science' sake.—(A. laugh.) He was anxious to vote
founded a law which prohibits marriages which we for the second reading of the Bill, but could
fiad not to be contrary t) God's Word. It is with refer- only do so upon the understanding that all the pro-
ence to the feelings ot those persons that the words had visions in the Bill with ta spect to a deceased wiie's
been used which the Hon. and Learned Member for the brother's daughter would be struck out of the Bill in
University of Dublin had said "had taken away his Committee.—(A laugh.)
breath." The Commissioners had said that the persons Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
whom they had found had formed such marriages were House divided, when there appeared—
persons who were not in the habit of violating the For the second reading ... ... 177
laws in other respects; and were those wise laws, he Against it ... ... ... ... 143
would ask, which forced persons of this class to Majority for the second reading ...--34
disobey them, which led such men as these to contrast The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
their views of legislation with our Legislature. The be committed.
Honourable and Learned Member then concluded, by The other orders of the clay were then disposed of,
apologising to the House for troubling them at such a and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.
length.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, after the speech of the Noble
and Learned Lord, he felt himself called upon, from the
course he had taken with respect to this Bill, to off.r a
tew observations. As regarded the tipper class, that
Noble and Learned Lord stated that the balance
of evidence goes very much against the enac- 1
time 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.) Ile was
the last 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 solemnization of those marriages. Was that
acondition 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 body 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.—(flear, hear.)
hadsin s existed
such
as ftohrisßiil upwardse on
toe of 3p,loaoteOdytehaers, committal and
He believed that there was a religious injunction against
the passing of this Bill, for it was opposed to the law which
itwoat that
the the people of Canaan were visited as they were.
No man could doubt, reading Leviticus strictly, that the
marriage of a man well 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 ot 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 siser.
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 Acts distinctly states that a certain portion of the
institutions of the Jews were to be carried over to the
law of Christianity, and amongst 1,11950 institutions were

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
ROGERS V. RUSSELL.

This was an action on a guaranteed bond to recover
from the defendant, Mr. Frederick Russell, a leather
cutter, the sum of 1781. 16s. 9d. It appeared that the
defendant and a person now deceased, named Garrett,
were sureties for a Mr. Henry Edward Russell, who was
appointed a collector of paving rates for St. Margaret's
and St. John's parish, who became a defaulter to the
above amount, and who is now undergoing imprison-
ment in Westminster Bridewell, for embezzling money
from the Westminster Life Assurance Office, in which
he was a clerk. His father had hell the office of col-
lector for some years before, and had unfortunately
been a defaulter in the amount of 2491. 10s. 2d.
The son, who was one of his father's sureties, stated
his willingness to the Commissioners to take upon him-
self the default of his father, provided they should ap-
point him to the situation which his father had resigned,
and which was not worth so much as 501. a year. They
agreed to appoint him. on condition that the money was
paid, and it was accordingly-paid by a Mr. Dawsett,
who was one of the sureties of the elder Russell.
The fither and son then covenanted to pay the amount
to Dawsett, and the place was given to him: Such are
the brief facts of the case.
Mr. Rogers, the clerk to the Commissioners, proved
the making of the bond in 1843. He wouA not swear
that the defendant Russell knew that the son had bound
himself to pay half the defalcation of his father. 301.
a year was to be paid to him by H. E. Russell for Daw•
sett, and he did so out of the poundage to which he was
entitled out of the rates collected by him. The arrange•
went was made, he believed, without the knowledge of
the Commissioners.

Mr. PETERSDORIT, in the absence of Mr. Sergeant
Wilkins, addressed the Court on behalf of the
defendant, who had pleaded that the guarantee bond
had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.
lie contended that the defendant had been disingeniously
deceived by the Commissioners—that he was led into an
agreement without this important fact being communi-
cated to him—that if 301. a year was deducted from the
salary of Henry E. Russell, that it would be safe for
him to become his surety—that if he was bound
by pecuniary obligations which might not unlikely lead
him to appropriate the money of others for his own
purposes, he would most unquestionably have declined.
If a person drew another into a bond, it was not only a
proper, tut a social obligation on his part to make no un-
derhand sinister deed like this. The Commissioners had,
therefore, deceived him in a way which was most &sere-
dit.able to them. They had broken their contract alto-
gether. Fur instance, Russell was bound to 'lndex
monthly accounts, and never to hold more than 501. ;
whereas nothing of the kind had taken place, and be had
been allowed to hold very large sums. He trusted the
jury would protect the defendant.
Mr. Edward Russell, aho was then examined, swore
that his uncle, the defendant, did not know that
he bad bound himself to pay 30/. a year out of his
poundage. He goodnaturedly became security be-
cause another uncle at Greenwich had refused.
He was aware of the defalcations of his father. The
Commissioners were perfectly aware that the money was
to be deducted from him; indeed, at one of the meetings
Of the Commissivnere, he was asked if he would pay 506