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

:MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The Earl of St. GERMANS -rose to move the second read-
ing of this bill, and said that although their lordships had in
1851 refused to affirm the principle of one of a similar nature,
he thought he was justified, after the lapse of 'five yearS, in
asking them to reconsider that principle. In 1842 the other
house had refused to allow a noble friend of his to bring in a
bill on this subject, but since that time they had allowe I such
bills to be introduced. The Archbishop of Dublin had truly
observed that every restriction was an evil, and that the bur-
den of proving its necessity must fall on its advocates. He
might therefore fairly call upon the opponents of this measure
to show that the legalisation of marriage with a deceased
wife's sister would be inconsistent with the wellbeing of the
country but as the question had frequently been discussed
he might assume that nothing new could be said upon it, and
he would answer 'by anticipation some of the arguments
kaiust the measure. Several ably men held that the mar-
riage law of the Jews was not binding upon. Christians. That
was the opinion of Bishop Taylor, who said—
" For though Christendom was then at the time of the
divorce of Queen Catherine by Henry var., much divided,
yet before there was almost a general -consent upon this propo.
sition, that the Levitical degrees de not by any law of God
bind Christians to their observation. I know of but one
schoolman (Paludanus) who dissents. By all which it appears
what was the state of these marriages under the law of Moses;
and yet all the scruple at which weak persons start or-stum-
ble is derived from that sanction in Leviticus which, in de-
spite of all reason and all precedents, and all observations
whatsoever, they will needs suppose to be a natural and moral
law, so making 11 Commandments, for certain it is that the
Ton Commandments were to the Jews the sum of their moral
law, in which, since some things that were ceremonial were
inserted, it is net likely that anything that was moral should
be omitted. In the 10 words of Moses there was nothing less
than their whole moral law though something more there
was."
Chief Justice Vaughan took the same view

" The Levitical-prohibitions are no general law, but parti-
cular to the Israelites. As they were delivered to the Jews
only by Moses, they bind other nations no more than other
laws of the Jews do, as the laws of succession, and inheriting
land or goods. They then must be made obligative, if at all,
to the generality of Christians by the New Testament; but by
what medium Scan that be proved? Were it not for the sta-
tutes, it would be hard to make out,by persons of what learn-
ing soever that wo are obliged by the Levitical degrees, for
we are not bound by the Judaical law, and how comes th's
part to be distinguished from the rest ? I mean those of the
Levitical degrees, which are of the Judaical positive law
only."
A more modern authority, Archbishop Whately, in speaking
of the opinion of another eminent prelate also said :
"I am certain that he (Bishop Copleston) in common
with the very persons who have appealed to what they call
' the Divine law' in this matter, never considered the cere-
monial or the civil regulations of the Levitical coda as bind-
ing on us. No one considers himself bound by that to ab-
stain from the forbidden meats, or from selling land in per-
petuity, or to require any one to marry his brother's widow.
Nay, even what are called moral duties no Christian Legis-
lature has felt bound in all cases to enforce by its own laws ;
disobedience to parents, for instance, and gluttony and
drunkenness no one would deny to be moral offences, and yet
no'Legislature denounces against them the penalty of death.
The whole, therefore, of the appeal to the Mosaic law is ma-
nifestly irrelevant, even on the showing of the very persons
who have got up this topic of declamation for the purpose
apparently of diverting attention from the real points at issue
The civil and the ceremonial ordinances of that law can thus
far, and only thus far, be taken as a guide, namely, that any-
which isynot. merely permitted, brit distinctly enjoined
in the law, cannot be at variance With the immutable princi-
ples •of morality." - • -
Many learned men, Sir William Jones and Others, held that