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

that these marriages were neither inconsistent with Scripture
nor with the well‘bein,g of society, and that they were lawful
marriages, and the bast which under some peculiar cirenm-
stanees, could be contracted. The Americana were not an
irreligious or an immoral people ; and would their lordships
pretend to set vain apprehensions against their practical. ex-
perience ? On what ground, therefore, would „the .douse, be
Justified in refusing to agree to the present.bill?. .11c might
be told-that there was something peculiar in the position of
sister-in-law;a but would not the same observation apply
-4,6 any. other'fenaale friend of the husband'? And, was it not
calumnious to the character of the .parties to say that d ni ing the
'life Ora mati's wife; feelings might ;grow .up, if the marnages
:he coow-advocated were lawful, between the latsband .and
sister-in-law which did not grow up between hiMandany
other` female friend , Some of the most able wriWrs had beld-
-,thatlhese marriages were desirable, and that no onuiVotild
'make so kind a mother-in-law as the sister of. the deqe4ed.
wife, But he did not . rest Lis support of the .bill ea- that
,ground,-but he maintained that these marria.gcf ought,liqtr to
:be- prohibited un!ess there were some paraincaka4eliglim
objection to th m, or unless some overwhelming, soC:iat evil
could. be shown as likely to flow from them. .The‘petitioners
iirfavotir of -the bill had petitioned Parliament in the Most
respectful terms, bad invited discussion on. the trihj ct,.end
had_exeited a considerable feeling in their fayear ticiougheut
the thinking and moderate classes. lie bad already alluded
to:the fact, -glowing the growing sentiment infavour.of these
luarliages, that the bill on the subject 1711W'rejt6,1 in ;the
'Houses of C,ammons in 1842, and sent Up-tea-heir lor.Kipa,in
1849. It was said by some that it was .not worth while "to
legislate for so small a nuMber of persons, bict he assured their
derclahipi that the number was not so small ; but tri the exist-
;Mg state of the kw many persona were reluctant to in Ake
_known that they had contracted these num:a:4es .; and seye-
- rad. of these marriages likewise were contracted. by liers,onasin
humble- eireumstatees, and were not, therefore-,:easily aseer-
dainal le. Nevertheless, it was known that a N-ff.5t,44,44) of
.
thewmarriages Lad taken place, and the-number wag increas-
.irrg, and, cons quently, by refusing to sanction them the
vslature w;is laying up a large stock of futurereiwv,and li-
tigation. Though there might be some dotibt te-the-lega-
lity:of these marriages contracted by peiSana going atread
for:the "purpose, he was told that in the case of a bone frcte
abroad, Sir F Kelly and other lawyerahad held
that there could be -no doubt as to the legality of. the mar-
riages. He would next call the attention of their lordships
• to the observations of Sir W. Blackstone with regard to the
necessity of obeying the law : -
`i"lt3s-bald; it is
true, and very justly, by tire principal of
our ethical writers that human laws are binding on men's
consciences;- but if that were the only or -,most foreible
obligation, the good only would regard the laws, and the bad
would set them at defiance. And, true as this principle is,
it mast still be understood with some restriction. It holds,
I apprehend, as to rights, and that when the law has deter-
mined the field to belong to Tertius it is matter of con-
science no "lenger to withhold or to invade it. So, also, in
regard to.natural duties, and such offences as are mater in se.
Here we-are bound in conscience, because we are bound by
superior laws, before those human laws were in being, to
perform the one and abstain from the other. But in relation
to those laws which enjoin only positive duties and forbid
only such things as are not matt in se, but viola proltibita,
merely annexing a penalty to non-compliance, here, I appre-
hend;:ainseienee is no further concerned than by directing a
submission to the penalty in case of our breach of those laws,
for otherwise. the multitude of penal laws in a State would not
only be looked on as an impolitic, but would also be h very
wicked thing, if every such law were a snare for the consci-
ence of the subject. But iu these cases the alternative is of-
fered to every man, either abstain from this or submit to
such a penalty,' and his conscience will be clear whichever
side of the alternative he thinks proper to embrace. Thus,
by the statutes for preserving game a penalty is denounced
against every unqualified person that kills a hare. Now, this
prohibitory law does not make the transgression a moral of-
fence; the ouly obligation in conscience is to submit to the

penalty if levied." -
He bad noW fnlfilled a task which he bad undertaken much
against his will, -Ho 'had no personal interest in the ques-
tion ;. he bad no friend who was interested in it ; and when
his right hon. friend the Recorder of London, a few years
ago; asked him to take charge of the bill which passed through
the other house, he had declined. But since that time, hay.
ing given greater consideration Ito the subject, he had seen
the necessity of a revision of the present law, and had con-
sented to take charge of this measure. The noble earl con.
eluded by moving-that the bill be read a second time.

The Bishop of OXFORD would endeavour to prevail upon
the house to vote by a large majority that the bill of his noble
friend should not get a second reading :then ; but that it
should be read a second time that day six months. Feeling as
he did that they were bound to maintain those great eafo.
guards to demeStic purity which had been handed to them by
those who liadgone before them, and which they in turn
ought to transmit to those who should come after them—
(hear, and cheers)—in his opinion, a preliminary objection
to the bill of his-noble friend was, that it either went too
far or did,. not go far enough, and that, if passed, its ,effeet
woU'idThe to pnli the law iu opposition to itself. In the
Act of Uniformity the Legislature took up the Rubric of
the Established Chnrch, and Ecclesiastical statutes
.were

still held by tho courts. In the original _attempt

to deal matter now before the Louse,_ it, was pro-
posed to make-the elergy of the Established Church do what
the ecclesiastical law rendered it impossible for them to do,
'namely., perform such marriages when applied to; just as
they-would any nianiage which was cow permitted by law.
However, it had been found idipcissible to maintain such a
proposition as that ee the face of Parliament, beeanse on the
one hand the—eleivenian -Would haVe been subjected to
.penalties if_ he performed. .such a marriage ; and on the
-other, he -would be subjected to penalties if -tae refused.
(Heat, leati:)---theil followed the unstatestuan-like proposi-
tion of his noble friend to leave it optional with the clergy-
- man whether he- would' perform the marriage.- The absurdity
of such- legisletion -as' that had bees exposed to their lord-
ships. (Hear, hear.) By the .bill now before ehe house his
noble friend- proposed to leave the clergy of the Established
Church of England and the clergy- of the Established Church
-of. Scotland under the ecelesieglical law to which they were
new subject. Now; the ecclesiastical law-dieclered that those
unions which the noble earl sought to,legaliso were contrary
to the law of.. God —it declared that they were .not marriages
at all ; it-declared that they were Incestuous concubinage.
(Hear, hear.) He was not at present saying whether that
was a right, or a wrong view ; but he was
.recording that
which was the present view of the Established Church of
EnglAd. lie believed it was tho view of the Established
, ChurCh of Scotland also ; but beyond all doubt the Established
Church of England declared that those particular unions were
contrary to the law of God—(bear, hear)—and the service of
the Church of England declared that any. union which was
-contrary to the law of God was no union whateVer." His noble
friend would not dispute that in the ecclesiastical courts of
this country there would be no difference of opinion on that
matter ; nor would the noble earl maintain that the children
of such a marriage would be legitimate. (Hear, hear.) Yet
what did his noble friend propose to do 1 He-Would have re-
course to a new statute; declaring these marriages lawful, but
he would leave those statutes which enforced the ecclesiastical
law unrepealed, and, consequently, leave the clergy unehel-
tered from the consequences of all the ecclesiasticaljews—
canons, rubric., and service—which declared those marriages
to be contrary to the law of God and to be incestuous concu-
binage. (Hear.) How was the Church to treat the clergy who
would perform thee:, marriages? Was it to treat them as
living in unity with the Church I Was it to administer to
them the different rites of the Church? Again, in a suit for
the 'restoration of conjugal rights, would the ecclesiastical
court recoenise such a marriage ? (Hear.) Tee clergyman
celebrating one of these marriages would, under a law which
his noble friend propOsed to leave uurepealed, be subject
to tire severest censures of the Church ; but if this bill .passed
a clergyman'Cotad hiniself go before a civil magistrate `and
Contract such a marriage without being liable to any penalty
whatever. (Hear.) Were their lordships prepared to put
the clergy in such a false position ? Such a bill at best would
put 'the clergy under one legislative regulatiOn and the laity
under another. (Hear) On this ground alone be
,would
ask their lordships to throw cut the bill by a large majority.
(Cheers.) - As regarded the Scriptural question, he 'thought
his noble friend had been rather inconsistent; for he.
first urged that the Levitical law was not binding os Chris-
tians at all, and:then proceeded to show that those mar-
riages were not forbidden by the Levitical law; (Hear.) He
(the Bishop of Oxford) was qitituready to admit, so far, the
Levitical law was a municipal or ceremonial law -it was bind-.
ing only on the people'for whom it was made—the Jews; but
that was the only sense in which he could admit that. he
Levitieril law-- was not binding on us as Christians. Wheree'
ever it was capable of proof that the law spoken by, Golf
to the Jews was not a municipal or ceremonial' law; but
an exposition of God's will for man, there that- exposition
of His will for man was just as binding ou us as it was on
the Jewish people. Now, he ;Would direct:the attention of
the house to words in - the 18th chapter of Leviticirse—the
chapter so often referred to—which were everds of awful
caution to the children of -Israel, and
who
to crimes
. which had been committed by those had inhabited the
land in which they (the Israelites) then were before they had
been 'put in possession of it. The words were, " All these
abominations have the men of the laud done who were before
you, and the land is defiled." Now, the caution given in the
chapter to which ho referred had no application till it was
connected withilie-peOPle:who had bees in the land before the
Jews; while if the caution Were merely municipei, it could
have no application to those former inhabitants. Those acts,
when done by a people not having nay revealed law, were
said to defile tite-land, and he believed they wouldhetouetbo..
.ing one of the great rules-which - God had laid. -loon for his
creatures, and not as a mere municipal law for the gnidance of
the Jews, if they now saaCtioned the change -with respect-
marriage proposed by his noble friend. Tile-authority of Sir
w: Jones had keen:referred toebut that greatOrientaseholar
.had only referred to that enionwhich in the- sight of God was
incestuous cencubinage -not to-hely marriage. But he (the
Bishop of Oxfordewould appeal to thneonsisteutjudgment of
the Church of Christ in all its purest ages. His noble friend
had saidthatethey-ought not to use the principle of analogy.
But unless they adopted that principle they could not say that
a father should not marry his own daughter. The chapter in
Leviticus contained no prohibition against au uncle marrying
his own niece in blood.,_The prohibitions were all taken from
the side of the man. There was-a prohibition against the son
marrying his mother, and conversely a mother was prohibited
from Marrying her son. The nephew might not marry his
aunt, and conversely the aunt ought net to marry her
nephew.' It, .was the same with respect to the particular
relationshipinciuded in_ he noble earl's measure. So far as
the letter of the NeW Testament went, there were two pas.
sages which-bornen the subject. There was—first, that-re."
hating to Herod's marrying hiebrother's wife. Sheliadleft her
husband in his life-terne, but there was no proof to:shoerthat
he was living when she married his brother. The other in-
'stance was that mentioned in the first of the Corinthians,
where a man was ordered' by the apostle to be cast out be- •
cause he had married his father's wife. That was a case of
affinity, not of consanguinity. It might be that the father was
alive at the time, but where was the proof ? He, on the other
hand, found that there was a strong probability that the
father was not' aliee at the time. It would seem that the
Christians at that early period were puffed up by having, as
they conceived, the liberty of breaking through the Mosaic
law, and the apostle said that they must not glory in an im-
munity which was their shame. He believed that the correct
conclusion to be drawn from those two passages in the NeW
Testament was, that these marriages were equally forbidden
between parties connected by affinity as well as by consau-
guinity. It was distasteful to him to argue the question on
particular texts of Scripture, as if they furniehecl the Chris- _
tian mates sole rule of conduct. He believed that the instructed
eye, loOking at God's dealings with his ancient people, would
see that the Jews had been raised from a horde of slaves to the
dignity of freemen by subjecting them to certain restrictions. •
If those restrictions could be traced up to the spirit of God's
law, they ought to be regarded as choice and signal blessings.
He said that God had restrained his ancient people from prac-
tices which they had been accustomed to witness in Egypt
and amongst the heathen people around them. Those re-
strictions had been -the means of raising them to a higher
state Of civilisation; and he said that the Church of Christ in
all ages had truly interpreted the will of God in this respect.
Looking at the mysterious attractions which existed between ,
the two sexes, the law of God, from the very beginning of
oar rue; had added restraints upen ehe licence Of union- The,,.
change now' proposed-wOuld amount to the removal of a-Most—
blessed systems, which had given happiness and purity to