The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 25.
The 1.01113 CIIANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
MARRIAGE AFFINITY BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL presented petitions, numerously
signed, from several Dissenting congregations against
this Bill.
Lord St. Germans, Lord Wharncliffe, and the Earl of
Carlisle presented petitions from Doncaster and several
other places in favour of the Bill.
Lord OVERSTONE begged also to lay upon their
Lordships' table a petition, numerously and most respect-
ably signed by inhabitants of the city of London. It
was signed by the present Lord Mayor, the gentleman
who was lately Lord Mayor, the Governor and Deputy-
Governor of the Bank of England, by 59 of the
principal persona connected with the Corporation,
by the Chamberlain of the City, by 237 of the principal
merchants of the City, 146 solicitors, 154 barristers, and
other parties who were deeply interested in the subject
of this Bill. He need hardly assure their Lordships that
the persons from whom this petition emanated were men
of the] highest intelligence and respectability—
men who entertained the meat conscientious feel-
ings, who had the highest regard for public
decency and morality, and who were especially careful
not to attach their names to any document which was
in any way calculated either to be injurious to their own
welfare or that of their neighbours. Still less were
they disposed to advocate anything that was con-
trary to doctrines contained in the sacred word of God.
Oa these grounds he felt himself justified in offering the
petition to the serious consideration of their Lordships,
and in doing so he earnestly hoped their Lordships
would, by their decision this night, remove that obstacle
which, in his judgment, had been most unnecessarily
and improperly raised, and which he believed neither
the laws of God nor the well understood laws of society
justified or rendered expedient.
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented several pe-
titions from the clergy against the Marriage Bill.
Lord NELSON presented a considerable number of
petitions to the same effect from clergy in Bridport,
Shrewsbury, Liverpool, and other places.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented several
petitions, as we understood, in favour of the Marriage
Bill.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said, not long before the
close of last session of Parliament, a Bill was brought up
to the House of Lords from the other House of
Parliament, to amend the Act relating to marriages,
within certain degrees of affinity, which was passed in
the sth and 6th year of William IV. Of that Bill be
had reluctantly taken the charge; he said reluctantly,
not because he had any doubt of the policy or propriety
of the measure, but because he felt conscious of his own
incompetence to deal adequately with the theological and
legal questions which were involved in the measure.
It was said that the measure was too important to be
discussed at so advanced or so late a period of the ses-
sion; and it was then arranged it should be brought forward
at the commencement of the present session. He had now
to claim their Lordships' indulgence while he stated to
them the arguments which he thought ought to
induce them not to reject the present Bill. He
might have commenced by arguing that the
Mosaic law was not binding on those who had
embraced the Christain dispensation. To prove this he
would only cite the opinions of Jeremy Taylor, of the
eminent Lord Chief Justice Vaughan, and of the Rev.
Mr. Tyler, who had been examined before the commis.
sion on this subject; but he was not disposed to insist upon
that argument. He might also, with very many eminent
Biblical scholars, have insisted that the same interpre-
tation of prohibition could not have been applied to man
and woman. The 18th chapter of Leviticus contained
sixteen degrees of prohibition, eight of consanguinity,
and eight of affinity, and it was by a logical process from
these prohibitions, which was called a parity of reasoning,
that the prohibitions now enforced were drawn, as, for
instance, from the prohibition against miming a
brother's widow contained in that chapter, was drawn
that against marrying a wife's sister; while, in fact,
the converse of that proposition would in truth
be against marrying a husband's brother. He
would- ask their Lordships, whether, in a law which
described with such singular minuteness all the different
degrees of prohibition, any degree which had meant to
be prohibited would not have been specially mentioned?
Some attempt had been made to show that there were
in the Scripthres to be found an absolute prohibition of
a marriage with a decea'ed wife's sister; but he believed
that the words of Scripture in the original language would
be found to bear no such meaning. We had no right to
exercise our fancy in wresting the plain words from
their original meaning, and it would be found, according
to the interpretation of the best scholars, that no such
meaning could be attached to the words of Scripture.
It had been held by Professor Michaelis that such mar-
riages were not. prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures.
t had been indeed distinctly understood that according
to the Mosaic law these marriages were admitted after
the decease of the wife. He trusted that he had satis-
fied their:Lordships that there had been no prohibition
of these marriages under the Mosaic dispensation.
There certainly had been no
,prohibition of these mar-
riages either by our Saviour or by his apostles, and we,
therefore, might assume that our Saviour did not con-
sider them unlawful. But it was said that they were
prohibited by the canon law. It was true that the canon
law declared that he who married two sisters could not
become a clergyman. It did not appear, however, that
the provisions of the canon law upon the subieet afTPetPd
laymen. But even if they did, he did not see how the
canon law could at present be binding upon Englishmen.
There were many provisions in the canon law which
were professedly inoperative among 113; and he con-
tended, therefore, that, as a whole, we could no longer
be subjeet to its enactments. By the 13th canon it was
provided that a man who after having been baptised had
married two wives, could not beceme a bishop or a
clergyman; and there were in other canons provisions
equally obsolete. In discussing that question rsferenee
was frequently made to the Council of Illiberis; but the
decree of that council did not invalidate those marriages;
it merely imposed as a penalty on parties contracting
them nett they should abstain from receiving com-
munion for five years. The fact was that in con-
sidering the opinions held in remote ages upon that
question it sheuld_ not be forgotten that the fathers
of the early Church had systematically undervalued
marriage in any shape, and had been perpetually en-
. gaged an exalting celibacy; so that it could not be a
matter of surprise if they bad judged with undue
severity any particular species of matrimonial connexion.
One father of the Church had denounced a second
marriage as improper and indecorous, and had said that
a third marriage was no marriage at all. About the
year 1000 Pope Alexander 111. prohibited marriages
within the seventh degree of kindred. Pope Innocent
about the year 1200, relaxed that law, and per-
mitted mirriagea beyond the fourth degree; and that
was at present, he believed, the state of the law upon the
subject in the Romas Catholic Church. The canoes of
1603, which had been passed into this country, were
frequently introduced into that discussion. But he be-
lieved those canons could not be held to be binding on
laymen. That was the opinion of Lord Hardwiche, who
had so decided on the ground that they had not been
assented to by the representatives of the people. And
further, many
of thole canons might be held to have
become inopereive, so that it was doubtful whether they
were binding oven on clergymen. Bishcp Short, in his
History of the Church of England, said that many of
those canons had been superseded by subsequent Acts of
Parliament, and it was much to be wished that they
were remodelled. Again, Archdeacon Sharpe, an emi-
nent dignitary of the Church in the last century, said,
that as to the canons, no one could say that clergymen
were bound to obey them all, for alterations in the cus-
toms and manners of the country had made some of
them impracticable. He (the Earl of St. Germans)
thought it was to be regretted that the canons were not
more in accordance with the temper and circumstances
of the time'; hut while they continued in existence they
should either be received or rejected as a whole. There
was a peasage upon that subject in a judgment of Chief
Justice Vane, sn, which he would read to their Lord-
ships, although he admitted that it referred generally
to the eanon law of former times, and not
to the canon law of this country. Chief Justice Vaughan
said that the canon law varied in successive ages,
and that that , which was perpetually changing
could not be taken as a measure of rectitude.
—(Hear.) It might be said that those marriages were
opposed to the decrees of synods of the Church.
In answer to that argument he should observe that the,
21st Article of the Church of England stated that gene-
ral councils might be called together without the com-
mand of princes; but that, when gathered together, they
might err, and had erred, and that the doctrines they
laid down were not entitled to credit unless " taken out
•of the Holy Scripture." Now, he contended that the
ddctrine of those persons who denounced these marriages
pas not "taken out of the Holy Scripture." The late
Bishop of Llandaff had said that a marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister was not opposed to the Word of God;
and !he present Bishop of Durham entertained a similar
opinion, although it appeared that he could not go the
length of supporting the present measure. He believed,
too, that• other members of the episcopal bench enter-
tained the same view of the subject. He should observe,
Y the Bill clergymen would not
however,
compelled
to celebrate those marriages which
they might consider r d
opeposed to the Divine law.
But he would p
question.
Hear
history of
their legislation upon that q
having been many years: married
enry VIII., after
to the wife of his de-
ceased brother, had induced Parliament to declare that
ilhle the
gitimac y
everhen
marriage invalid. and to Itigreasiee witch t,
dow, then
passed born of the union. • Tho A
passed had been subsequently repealed, anatfbteearsdsuebvjeercatl,
h
changes in the legislation of that reign upon
the 32d of Henry VIII. had been Passed; and after-
anrddgtaher ofe
wards become the law in the matter.
In
passed,t the
Queen Mary another Act had been
had since been no alteration in the law
upon the sub-
ject, until the Act known as Lord Lyndhurst's Act.
Previously to that latter Act considerable doubts had
existed as to the legality of those marriages. It was
stated by Coko that a case of the kind bad been tried
in the Court of Common Pleas, and that the judges
there had decided that such marriages could not be im-
peached, and were not contrary to Ac t of Par-
liament, inasmuch as they were not within the
prohibited degrees. But it could not he denied that at
a Icier period the current of opinion had run in a con-
trary direction. A case of the kind had been tried not

. - many years ago, and in deciding, upon upon that case Lord
e Denman, with Justice Coleridge and other judges, had
,44.4 in it has their opinion that such marriages were il-
Nit—WS-PA r 31v..Juittce Earl had also arrived at the same
although very much to the surprise of all
, ~go to acquainted with the opinion which he had so
pressed to the contrary when consulted upon the
•
by counsel. The Act of Lord Lyndhurst had
tlcet,:zt used for the purpose of removing the doubts and
die& oroltad by the th©n e--- t- f
4,5 mg state o the
that stet marriagia
previously COl2.
2