The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-26 00:00:00

Campbell) own opinions, he was bound to say that those he
held in 1851 on the subject were still unchanged; and he
would add, that the more he re llected on it the more decid-
edly
he believed that the alteration proposed by the noble
earl in the present law was contrary to the law of God as
well as the law of the land. He had a great respect for the
noble earl, but he thought the noble earl would have done
much better if he had avoided a continuance of the agitation
on the subject. The noble earl said that public opinion had
been increasing on the matter ; it had done so, but it was
against any change in the law. In the year 1849, for in-
stance, the House of Commons passed a bill on the subject
by a large majority ; in 1865, however, a similar bill was
only read a second time by a majority of seven ; and each
successive stage so decreased its supporters that it fell through.
The alteration proposed in the law was, in his opinion, con-
trary to the law of God, and socially productive of great mis-
chief. There could be no doubt that the marriages proposed
had been held as unlawful in England for three centuries.
The solemn judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the
case of the " Queen v. Chafis," settled the question as to the
legality of these marriages ; and he was astoni,hed that the
noble earl should set up his own opinion against that judg-
ment.

Earl ST. GERMANS was understood to deny that such
was the case. _ .

Lord CAMPBELL was glad to hear it. That judgment
had been acquiesced in by the country ; but the attempts
which had been subsequently made to overturn it were the
cause of the act which was sought to be repealed by the bill
of the noble lord. That bill, however, was more objection-
able than any former bill ; it went farther, for it applied to
the niece of a deceased wife, as well as to a deceased wife's
sister. It was, moreover, admitted that legislation would
not end with th• bill, and therefore further alterations
might bo looked for. In fact, it would lead to per-
petual agitation, and no ore would know at last
where the line of demarcation was drawn. He was not sur-
prised the bill did not extend to -cotland, for by the univer-
sal opinion of that country it was held in abhorrence. As a
measure calculated to lead to inextricable confusion, as well
as a measure contrary to law and religion, he (Lord Camp-
bell) gave the bill his most decided opposition.
The Bishop of CASHEL said that the Jewish law, ISth
Leviticus, was stated not to be part of the Jewish law ; but
lie maintained it was the declared exposition of the will of
God, and not a merely municipal regulation. Whatever a
man might do, a woman might do also, under that law. But
a man might not marry his brother's wife, nor a woman marry
her sister's husband ; therefore, reversing the conditi ns, a
man might not marry his wife's sister. He hoped and true' ed
that a large majority of their lordships would prove in the face
of the country that they were determined to go upon the
written Word of Uod, and that no motives of mere social
convenience should induce them in aught to depart from it.

The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S said an apprehension had been
entertained that he agreed with the noble earl (S. Germans)
in a very essential point of his argument, and that he differed
from tie greater part of his right rev. brethren. Certainly

there was one point with regaid to which he did coincide
with the opinion of the noble earl, and therefore so far dif-
fered from some of his right rev. friends, but the extent of
that agreement and of that difference had been most prodigi-
ously over-rated, and he must say that if before this evening's
debate the agreement between him and the noble earl was
small, the difference between them had been greatly widened
by what he was %mew to have heard fall from the noble earl.
On the otl er hand, he had the greatest p'easure in feeling a
g: wing as eirance that there WAS no material or substantial
difference betwe m his view of the subject and that which he
believed was entert iined, if not by all, yet by an immense
maj ,rity of his right rev. brethren. He (the Bishop of St.
David's) was sorry the noble earl had thought it his duty to
revive this discussion. He knew the preparations by which
it had been introduced, and which had been indicated by the
petitions laid upon t' eir lordships' table, and upon which
such stress had been Pe.e. eel as a material argument in favour
of the proposition of the noble earl. But h, would only ob-
serve with regard to that, that if they looked merely at the
number of the petitions they would be found to bear a very
inconsiderable portion indeed to the mass of the people who
were opposed to the measure ; and even if they were much
more numerous than they were, still he would sty that this,
above all, was a question en which he behoved their lordships
not to count the numbers, but to weigh the reasons which
were urged in the petitions. It was an undeniable fact that
the prohibitions with regard t ) marriage contained in the Old
Testament were actually tin basis of the law of the land on
this subject. Those prohibitions were, until the beginning of
the Christian dispensation, speaking generally, the undoubted
lawof the Jews, anl from the beginning of that dispensation
to this day, also speaking generally, they had remained the
law of the Christian Church. No doubt they were received
by the first disciples of our Lord with the same degree of de-
ference and submission as every other part of the law of the
Old T,stament which related to moral subjects, and if there
were any difference in their feelings with regard to this por-
tion of the Divine law, it was that they were opposed to any
relaxation of its rigour than would have been the Jews them-
selves before the Christian dispensation. But, however, that
might be, the feet was indisputable that these prohibitions
did form the basis of our actual system with regard to all
its domestic relations ; and this was not only the actual
basis, but the only basis which could be conceived, devised,
or formed by any human law or wisdom. If it were not the
basis, then they were thrown upon the light of nature to
regulate these relations, and there was nothing to prevent
them from falling back into those cxce sex into which some
of the most enlightened nations of the heathen world,
which wanted those restraints, did actually fall by sanc-
tioning every kind of incestuous abomination. It was
true that the noble earl only proposed to cut one of the
restrictions, but that was upon grounds which evidently
reached them all, and would virtually sweep them all
away. (Hear, hear) Although in one single point, then, he
eeineided in opinion with the noble earl, still, upon the whole,
and in substance, he perfectly agreed-with his right rev. bre-
thren. The point in which he agreed with them was this—
that the principle and spirit of the Divine law was distinctly
and clearly opposed to that kind of marriage which the noble
earl desired to legalise. The ground on which the Protestant
Dissenters rested this question in their petition was just as
applicable to every other prohibition in the table as it was to
the one with which the noble earl proposed to deal. He could
only regard the measure of the noble earl, then, as the first
step in a movement, the limit of which ho- confessed he was
utterly unable to foresee. True, the noble earl disclaimed
all intention of carrying the matter further; but was it not
probable, was it not morally certain, that some other noble
lord might come forward in a bolder spirit and with more
consistency than the noble earl, to carry out the principle on
which the noble earl had founded his measure ? He trusted,
then, that their lordships would add another title to the gra-
titude of the country, by again rejecting the proposition of
the noble earl, and that by a still greater majority than on
the last occasion the bill was before them. ( dear, hear.)
Earl GREY said there were two or three important points
which had been mentioned by the noble earl, and which no
attempt had been made to controvert or answer. In the first
place, not a single member of their lordships' house who had
spoken aeainst the bill had ventured to say that there was
in the Word of God a plain and clear prohibition of those
marriages in so- many words. (Hear, hear.) Neither had
they ventured to deny that prelates of the highest eminence,
that a large body of the parochial clergy, and that the com-
missioners appointed by the Crown to inquire into the subject
had arrived at the conclusion that these marriages were net
prohibited by the 'Wor I of God; and that the prohibition by
human legislation was mischievous instead of advantageous.
Further, they hid not denied that in every other Protestant
country in Europe these marriages were legal ; whilst even
in Roman Cathclic countries and in Russia they were fre-
quently allowed under certain circumstances. In America
these marriages were approved of ; and the act of the senate
legalising them was en public grounds considered a beneficial
one. (Hear, hear.) It was not denied that in this country
each marriages were entered into by the lower orders in defi-
ance of the law; and it was equally notorious that many
persons of the higher classes of society went to foreign countries
to contract them. (Hell., hear.) He could not help,expres-
sing his deep regret that his noble and learned friend the
Lord Chief Justice had extra-judicially, and without having

heard the arguments of counsel on a-subject which might
probably be brought before him judicially at a future time,
expressed So decided an opinion as to those marriages being
altogether against the law of this country. That appeared
to him (Earl Grey) to be very unfortunate, for it would ne-
cessarily detract from the weight of that judgment which he
(Lord Campbell) might hereafter be called upon to pronounce
in a court of justice. (Hear, bear.) Those were the grounds
which induced him to vote for the second reading of the bill.
He voted more for the principle than the details of the
measure. According to all the usages of Parliament, on the
second reading the house considered the principle of a bill
and nothing else. The principle of the present bill he took to
be simply this—that the existing prohibition to a man's
marrying a deceased wife's sister should be relaxed. The
faults of the bill could be removed, or at all events corrected,
in committee. (Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of EXETER would not have thought it neces-
sary to address the house but for some observations which
had fallen from the noble earl who had last addressed their
Lordships. The noble earl had said that there was no ground
whatever for holding that these marriages were contrary to
the law of God. Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) should in-
form the noble earl that it had from the earliest ages been
the doctrine of the Church that they were contrary to the law
of God. (Hear, hear) The law of the land had adopted
the affirmation of the Church on the subject; and by
its statutes affirmed that such marriages were contrary
to the law of God ; that they sere incestuous as well as
invali '. (Hear, hear.) Switzerland had been referred
to, but with the exception of one canton—that of Neufchatel
which was under the influence of Prussia, Switzerland adopted
the same view of the question as England. All the Greek
Church was opposed to those marriages; and the Greek
Church bore witness of what was the common doctrine of
Christianity before the separation of the Western and Eastern
Churches. The Roman Catholic Church also held that those
marriages should not be celebrated. It was said that that
Church had granted dispensations permitting marriage with
a deceased wife's sister ; but what was the question raised at
the time of Henry vIII.'s proposal for a divorce from his first
wife ? The point was, whether the Pope could dispense where
a matter was thought to be clearly contrary to the law of
God ? The greatest universities of Europe, the canons of the
Church, the University of Paris, and the English universities,
almost unanimously declared that the Pope could not dispense
where the matter was contrary to the law of God ; that he
could dispense where the case was simply one of prohibition
by roan, but that the prohibition then under consideration
not being one by man, but by God, it, could not be dispensed
with. ( Hear.) Then, as to legal authorities, in a celebrated
case where a wife applied for a divorce from her husband on
the ground that he had committed adultery with her sister,
Lord Thin-low supported the biil, stating that a divorce was
granted to a husband whose wife had committed adultery, be-
cause he could no longer live with her without degradation to
himself, and in the case then before him (Lord Thurlow), the
husband having been guilty cf " incest," the wife could not
live with him any longer without degrading herself, and there-
fore he would vote for the divorce. (Hear.)
Lord CONGLETON voted against the bill, on the ground
that it was opposed to Scripture.
The Earl of ELLESMERE supported the measure.
The Earl ST. GERMANS replied.
Their lordships then divided. The numbers were :
For the second readin
Contents . g—
......
Non-contents 43
against the second reading —l9
Majority
The bill was, therefore, lost.
The house adjourned at a quarter before 12 o'clock.

HO USE Ors COIIMONS.--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAXER took the chair at the usual hour.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Bath Gas bill and the Worksop Gas bill were seve-
rally read a third time and passed.
The B ,stop Gas bill, the Canada Company bill, the
Eastern 'Union Railway bill, and the Leeds Water bill
were considered, and ordered to be read a third time.
The order of the day for the committal of tbo Barnsley
Canal and Collieries Hail Nay bill was read and dis-
charged.

STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.
Mr. L. KING moved fora copy of the memorandum
of the Attorney-General to the plan of proceeding in
consideration of the statutes.—Agreed to.
Sir J. SHELLEY presented a petition from the pariah