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

THE SUN, lONDON,_SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 26, 1856.

SPORTING NOTES.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

A PRELUDE.

Ti Le week just broughitoa close has been fraught
wi tt, many changes. New favourites for different races,
have, been introduced into the betting, while ohl ones
ha vie been knocked out of the market. Fazzoletto has
ta'lte n the place of Fly-by-Night in the list of quotations
for• the Two Thousand. He has been tried with Hobby
H of •se, Bracken, and others ; and although somewhat
ba al :ward in his preparation, yet "he did all that was
Al of him" so easily that hopes are still entertained
at , the Two Thousand, at least, will be carried to Mal-
te.n, Yellow Jack "oscillates," mos: perplexingly be-
tvrel in 7 to 4, and 3 to 1. He has been hotly " peppered"
duri rig the past week, and the hostility of his opponents
is a ttributed to the unsatisfactory nature of the trial
which it is asserted he had with Omer Pacha.
Bird -in-Hand is quiet. If the ground be soft
he may be seen to advantage. Despite, however,
the, powerful opposition which is arrayed against Yel-
low Jack, I must confess that lam in expectation of
seeit'g" Bilidus John all right-again."
TI se defeat of Ellington by Fisherman created a seri'.
Bathe n, and has cleared the way for the advance of cer7
taire animals from the outside division in the Derby bet-.
tin g. Cannobie has recently been located at C tweton,.
wh.er a he bad und.;rgone a course of physic. He is, how-
ever,„ new all right again, and is doing good work.
Wen tworth has been backed during the week with con-
sitl,erable spirit and determination, He, is entered for the
N sw market Stakes next week, bat it is doubtful whether
eurinsity will he gratified by his fialfilfing his engage-
man 5.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at the usual hour.
Petitions a4ainst the Marriages 811 were presented
by Lord REDESDALE and the Marquis of BIIEADALI3ANE.
The Duke of. CLEVELAND presented a petition in
favour of the bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petitien from Hali-
fax, complaining of the grievances under which women
labour by the existing state of the marriage, law.
Lord OVERSTONE presented a petition from the
metropolis, signed by upwards of 300 clergymen of the
Church of England, in favour of the legaliseation of the
marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and also several
_other petitions, most numerously signed, with a similar
prayer.

Toe Bishop- of OXFORD presented a petition from
Hampshire against marriage with a deceased wife's sis-
ter. Some of the petitioners were of the labouring class,
and they stated the measure was uncalled for.
The .Barl of ALBEIIA.RLE presented petitions of
ri totally opposite character--ono was signed by upwards
of 17,000 persons, and the others were also numerrufdy
signed:--in favour of the legalisation of marriage with a
deceased wife's sister.
TRANSPORTATION.

The Earl of STANHOPE said be had received a state
meet from the Government which induced him to,post.
pone the appointment of a select committee on the subject
of secondary punishment, of which be Lai given Dotter%
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could. assure the
noble earl and their lordships generally that her Ma-
jesty's Government had this subject under their consi-
deration, and that it was their intention to
institute such an inquiry as be thought would
ba considered satisfactory to all parties, with a view
to the placing the law with• respect to secondary punish-
ments upon a more effectual footing than it appeared at
present. The noble marquis concluded by moving for
a return in reference to the number of convicts who
had been committed to prison within a certain period,
the sentence passed upon them, and the number that
had been granted tickets of leave.
Earl GREY said that if there was to be any inquiry
at all before legislation was attempted, it ought to be
gone into with-the least possible delay. They were now
very near Whitsuntide, and if-it was intended to consi-
der the subject this session, no further delay ought to be
allowed to take place.
Lord DUNGANNON said he trusted that the pre-
sent session would nut be allowed to pass away without
something being done on this subject. It had been ima-
gined that a person who had bad a ticket-of-leave
granted hi:n had a certificate of good character, but, on
the contrary, it appeared rather to be a stigma than
anything else.
The subject then dropped.
THE NAVAL REVIEW.

Tb
e prospect of a busy and important meeting next
week is most cheering. I shalt despatch my advices from
Heat 1-quarters for publication on Monday, when I wilt
cot an iunicate to the reader any little bit of information.
I tyla:y be enabled to pick up. As the R. M. Plate will
be ae aided before my notes are placed before the reader
on that day, I will express my pre3ent fancy for Kali-
pygp and Omer Paella.

A FRESM MAN,

PROORESS OF THE COTTON MANUFACTURES

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Tho magnitude of the cotton manufacture is apparent
from the fact, that tLe real value of last year's importa-
tions of raw cotton amounted to nearly twenty-one
millions sterling. So rapid has been the increase of this
great branch of our manufactures that the raw cotton
imported into the United Kingdom has almost doubled
in quantity daring the last fifteen years. Within that
period the cotton manufacture has been careering onward
at a pace which has outstripped' the most sanguine ex-
pectations. Manchester, the principal seat of the cotton
trade, has rapidly advance), from the enterprise and
succeess which have accompanied it, in arts, science, and
all kinds of useful learning, until it has taken high
rank among the most distinguished cities of the world ;
and,_at the present time, its numerous suburban villages
and towns continue to stretch out towards the central
seat of trade and opulence, so that it will not be extra-
vagant to expect that Manchester and the surrounding
manufacturing towns will, at no far distant day, become
one mighty ci.,;y of manufactures and commerce.
The total quantities of raw cotton imported into the
United Kingdom, from the United States, the Brazil;
the Mediterranean, the British possessions in the East
Indies, and British Guiana, and other countries,
amounted in 1841 to 487,992,355 lbs. ; whilst in
1855 the imports reached the large quantity of
891,752,002 lbs. To show the relative quantities
of cotton wool contributed for the use of our
spindles, and the support of tens of thousands of our
industrious population in the manufacturing districts,
we subjoin a statement of imports for the past year :
From the United States, 681,629,424 lbs. ; from the
Brazils, 24, 577, 9621b5.; the Mediterranean, 32, 904, 1531b5;
British possessions in the East Indies, 145,179,216 lbs.;
British West Indies and British Guiana, 468,452 lbs. ;
from other countries, 6,992,805 lbs.

Earl GRANVILLE said that since yesterday he had made
nquiries into the causes of the mistakes of Wednesday, and
he had now to state to their lordships what were the instruc-
tions given by the Admiralty for the safe conveyance of the
two Houses of Parliament to and from the naval review.
Some time ago arrangements were male with the South-
Western Railway to Carry their lordships down to Southamp-
ton, and at the beginning of this week Capt. Milne had had
an interview with the traffic manager to ascertain from him
whether it was perfectly certain that the company could un-
dertake under the pressure to which it was likely they would
be subjected to convey their lordships without chance of a
failure. The answer he received was, that the company had
made such arrangements that it was absolutely certain that
both the peers and the members of the other house would
arrive at Southampton at a quarter past 9 o'clock. The Ad-
miralty sent a communication to the municipal authorities of
Southampton, requesting them to take every precaution to
keep a clear passage from the railway station to the place of
embarkation, and they also wrote to the packet agent—a per-
son of great experience—desiring him to do everything in his
power to facilitate the embarkation of the two houses. Or:
ders were also given to appropriate the Harbinger and the
Pasha of Egypt yacht as tenders to convey the two house's on
board their respective vessels, and the packet agent was
directed to hire two additional tenders. He wrote back to
say that it was perfectly impossible for him to hire any ves-
sels, and two other steamers were then sent round for the
service. With regard to the selection of the Transit she was
thought to be a very fine vessel, and having a largo maiadeck
she afforded accommodation for a large number of persons to
breakfast together, with the additional advantage of being
under cover in case of rough weather coming on. Inquiries
had been made beforehand as to the state of her 'engines, 'and
the answer was-that theywere in good order, with the excep-
tion of a slight defect in the air pumps, the only effect Of which
would be, to reduce her speed from 11 to 10 knots an hour.
The officer Selected to command- .was -a gentleman of con.
siclerable experience, and their lordships had all been wit-
nesses of his great cJurtesy. (Hear, bear.) His instructions
were to-be ready to receive the company at-9 o'clock, and -
having taken them on board he was-to steam down the two
lines, to wait for her Majesty, and on her arrival to take up
her station as near the Reyal yacht as possible. In case of
any unforeseen delay he was to keep' outside for fear of coming
into collision with any of the gun-boats, What better in-
structions, even judging after the event, could have been
given them there, be could' not see. The Admiralty had
since made inquiries as to the state of tbe Transit's engines;
and it was found that the only cause of their failure was that
-the'steam had got low in consequence of the fires having been
let down. They had ordered a. .strict and searching inquiry
to be made as to who was to blame for this omission, and
whoever he was he would be punished. The whole thing
arose from the unfortunate breakdown on the South-Western
Railway—an event not so very extraordinary after all, con-
sidering that the company had undertaken to carry so large a
number of persons beyond their usual traffic. The accumu-
lation of trains on the line was so great that between 700 and
800 persons arrived at the point of embarkation at Southamp-
ton at the very moment when the two houses were expected..
At the first the packet agent declined to ship them because
he wished to keep the tenders
..for the use of the houses, but
he was perfectlY unable hto resist the entreaties and remon-
strances of 700 to 800 gentlemen and ladies, all crowding and
squeezing together iu the dust and heat. He thought it
better to use the tenders to-get them out of the-way, and
that was the reason why they were not forthcoming when -
their lordships arrived. With regard to the personal charge
made against him, he was afraid he should not be able to
make so satisfactory an answer. He had reflected deeply on
tho subject since, and he could not think of any excuse for
the pusillanimity which he had displayed. (Laughter.) He
could not accept the compliment which the noble earl oppo-
site had paid him for acuteness and sagacity, for he had so
completely lost his presence of mind that he had only carried
off with him one neutral 'peer and four noble lords of her
Majesty's Opposition. (Laughter.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to know who was
to answer for what was done and what was left undone by
the railway company. He was afraid that Parliament at pre-
sent had no power to punish the offenders, but ho hoped that
no long time would elapse before a bill would bo brought in,
giving Parliament and-the country supreme power over these
railway companies.
Lord RAVENSWORTH was willing to accept the noble
earl's apology with respect to the arrangements, or rather the
disarrangements of the early part of the day; but the noble
earl had given no explanation of the main grievance—namely,
the seven hours occupied by the Transit in her passage from
the place where she had taken up her position back to South- .
ampton.
Earl GRANVILLE said ho imagined that his statement
that the-fire had gone out was a sufficient explanation of the
absence of motive power. (A laugh.) _
The Earl of GALLOWAY complained that the railway
company had not taken the most ordinary precautions for the
accommodation of their lordships.
The subject then dropped.

Our exports of cotton manufactured goods have in-
creased, as the prosperity of the manufacturing districts
show in an equally gratifying degree, In 1841 the de-
clared value of cotton manufactures of all kinds exported
from the United Kingdom was 16,252,510/. ; of cotton
yarns, 7,266,068/. In 1555 the declared value of cctton
manufactures of all kinds was 27,531,2781., showing an
increase in value of about 11,000,0001. The return as
to cotton yarns shows a slight decrease as compared with
that of 1351.

The above figures indicate the vast amount of ma-
chinery at work in the cotton districts of Laaoashire
and Cheshire, and the great importance to the empire of
our cotton manufactures.

NEl,VS.—(This Day.)

COVENT GARDEN.

We had a steady trade to-day, and prices generally were
well supported.

MONT.—Pine apples, English, Eis to 12s per lb.; colonial
do., Os to Os each ; hot-house grapes, 15s to- 25s Od per lb ;
foreign ditto' Oct to Os ; melons, 2s Od to 3a 6d each;
peaches, 2s Od to 68' nectarines, is 6d to 4s per dozen;
apples, 2s 03 to 3s Oct per half sieve ; pears, 3s Oct to
6s per dozen ; plums, Os to Os per sieve ; green gages, Os
per punnet; apricots, is Gd to 5s Od per doz.; common plums,
Os Od to Os Od per sieve; cherries, ed to Od per. pound ;
lemons, 6d to 1s 6d per doz ; oranges, 6s to 12s par 100 ; fil-
berts, 9s to Os per doz. lbs ; cobnuts, 15s to Os ; almonds,
Os to Os per lb. ; walnuts, 01 to. 0,1 per 100; figs, Os 9d
to is 6d per doz. ; strawberries, 9d to is 6<l per oz. ; goose-
berries, Os Od to Os Od per half sieve ; currants, Os Od to
Os Od per half sieve; rasphirries, Od to Od per pottle.
VEGETABLEb.—Greens, is Gd to 3s Oct per doz. bunches;
cabbages, is to is 6d per dozen; Savoy ditto, is to
20 Od per do. ; brocoli, is to Is 6d per bundle ; potatoes, 60s
to 95s per ton ' • vegetable marrow, Od to Os per doz. ; peas,
Os to Os Od per bushel ; French beans, 2s Od to 3s Od per
100 ; turnips, 3d to 6cl per bunch ; carrots, 6d to 81 per
bunch ; cucumbers, ls Od to 2s 6d each ;: garlic, 8d to
Os 8(1 per pcund ;.spinach, 2s Gd to 3s Od per sieve ;
old onions, 2s 6d to 4s per bushel ; new ditto, 3d to 4d
per bunch ; leeks, 2d to 3d per bunch ' • shallots,
6d to 8d ; horse-raddish, 2s Od to 4s per bundle ; parsley,
3d to 5d per bunch ; celery, Os 9d to is 6d per
bunch ; endive, 2s Od to 4s Od per doz. ; beet, is Od to 2s
per doz. ; parsnips, Os Gd to is Od per dozen ; small
salad, 2d to 3d per punnet ; mushrooms, is Od to 2s Od
perpottle ; artichokes, 6d to 8d each ; cabbage lettuces,
6d to is 03 per doz. ; sorrel, Od to Os per half sieve ;
radishes, 6d to is Od per dozen hands ; tomatoes, 3s to 4s
per half sieve; chillies, is to is Gd per 100; Brussels
sprouts, 2s Od to 3s Od per half sieve ; capsicums, is to 2s
per 100 ; walnuts pickling, Od to Os per 100 ; cauliflowers,
is to 4s Od per doz. ' • rhubarb, 4d to 8d per bundle ;
asparagus, 5s to 12s perloo ; sea kail, is to 2s 6d per punnet.

the particular chapter-in Leviticus, generally relied on by thci
opponents of the bill, did not relate to marriage, but to up.
lawful intercourse. Let any unprejudiced man who had never
heard of the dispute. upon this question refer to his Bible for
information: Would he not tell their lordships that the only
passage upon the subject was the 18th of Leviticus, where a-
man was desired not to take 'a wife, to her sister to vex her
in her lifetime ? Attempts had been made to show that the-
words used in the authorised :version did not truly express-
the words of the original ; but almost all the most eminent
biblical authorities assured us . that the translation of this:
passage iu the authorised version of the Bible was most accu-
rate and correct, and that the Chaldee, the Samaritan, and:
all the ancient versions gave the same sense as the, authorised
version. There was nothing in the Bible to show that a man'
was not at liberty to do the same act at other times and in`-
other places. There was a Divine ingtruction —" Ye shall'
not add to the Word that I command you." It appeared to
him a perfectly unsound argument
.to say that, if marriteze
with a brother's widow were prohibited, marriage with-a-de-
leea-sedwife"s sister ought not to be allowed, or .that it ought;
to overthrow tho permission- contained in the 18th of Leviti-
cus: Jeremy Taylor, -in his Ductor Dubitantiurn, said :
" But if any.serupulons person shall inquire further, and
suspect that some degrees or persons are forbidden to. marry
that are not here expressed, but included by a parity of rea-
son, as .11 happensiu another _instance, for it is not forbidden
to marry our mother's brother's wife ; but -because here it is
made unlawful to marry our father's brother's wife it is to be
concluded also for the o.her, there being the same degree and
the seine reason.
"I answer to this by, parts. 1. It is very likely that it is
se iutemled that in eqUal cases there is au equal prohibition;
but it cannot certainly be concluded and relied upon that it is
so. 1. .Ilecause upon this account cases of. fear and scruple
might very much leo multiplied to no purpo e, for I remember •
that Fagius reckons out of the books of the Rabbies 2) per-
sons forbidden to marry, which yet are not reckoned in Lee
vitiehs. 2. Because of the rule of the law, 0. Mattis, 43
D. de procur quod lege prohibitoria non vetitum est perznis-
sum intelligitur.'. In negative precepts that which is not r.
bidden is presumed to be allowed. And to add more out of
fear is either to he wiser than the lawgiver, or to suspect Win
to be_ apt to quarrel by unknown -measures and secret. rules
of interpretation. 3. Because I find that among wise nations
the saraeLdegree does viotalwiey's admit the same prohibition."
Then it was said that there was a degree of consanguinity.
between a man and his wife's sister. On this subject Bishop
Milner said . - - • •
"It is at this day a great question among all men whether
brothers and sisters' children or cousins german may lawfully
marry ? which question supposes not only that the Levitical
degrees are still thought obligatory, but even all those other
degrees which by a parity of reason can be reduced to- those
measures,"
On the words " near of kin "Jeremy Taylor said :
" Our English is not sufficiently expreSsive of the full
sense of it. The Latin is something nearer to the Hebrew.
Vir non "aecedat ad propinquitatem carnis sum.' God
never forbade to marry-our kindred, but he forbade to marry
the nearness of our flesh. Remineius gives a rtile for this as
near as can be drawn from the words and the thing, Pre-
pinquitas carnis,' saith he, qu.e me Sine iatervalloattingit.'
That-is, She that is next to me, none intervening between
the stock and me.' That is, the propinquity. or nearness of
my flesh ; above- me is my mother, below is 'my daughter, on
the side is my sister—that is all.
" In negative precepts that which is not forbidden is pre-
sumed to be allowed. . • -
Unless God had intended these a perfect enumeration of
all the persons forbidden to contract marriages mutually, it
cannot be imagined why He should be pleased to repeat some
degrees -twice, which are equally forbidden in the'several in-
stances ; for if the parity of .cognation were to be the mea-
sure, then those degrees which are twice repeated might with-
out such repetition have been better reduced to the rule
under which they were sufficiently prohibited. -
" The same degree does not always admit the same prohi-
bition ; to marry my father's sister was forbidden, but it was
not forbidden to marry my brother's daughter."
A right rev. prelate who had made a speech on this subject
which had been published in a pamphlet, had fallen into an
unintentional error in a quotation from Jeremy Taylor, which
he had•no doubt be would correct in any future edition. We
could have no better definition of the words " nearness of
kin," ou which the opponents of ttlis measure relied, than
that -given by God himself, which gave no sanction to the
existing prohibition. The words "in her lifetime," in Levi-
ticus, clearly spoke for themselves, for the injunction to a
man not to a certain thing at a particular time and place
must be taken to imply a liberty to do it at a different time
and place. -No argument drawn from analogy could Over,
come that plain and unmistakeable inference. -Nobody pre-
tended that our Lord or any of his Apostles had expressed
any disapproval of these' marriages ; and the absence of
any condemnation of them on the part of St. Paul was
especially significant, inasmuch as that inspired writer
treated very copiously of the subject of marriage.
The case of the elicit connexion betweesu Herod and
Herodias, which elicited the remarkable reproof of John
the Baptist, was sometimes referred to in arguing this clues:.
tion ; but, when impartially examined, it would be found to
furnish no ground for adherence to the present restriction.
Josephus on this subject said—" After whose death" (that of
Salome) " Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of
our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he
was alive, and was married to Herod (Antipas), her husband's
brother by the father's side. He Was Tetrarch of Galileo."
To this a note is appended by ..Whistonoriz.--e" Nor-Was it,
as I agree with Grotius and others of the learned, Herod the
Tetrarch, but this Herod-Philip, whose -wife Herod the Te-
trarch had married, and that in her husband's lifetime, and
-when her first 'husband had issue by her, for which adulter-
ous and incestuous marriage John the Baptist justly reproved
Herod the Tetrarch," Origeu, in his Comreeutary on St..
Matthew, chapter- xiv., verso 4, also says f--" Philip was,
indeed, the Tetrarch of . Iturma. and. of the-region of Tra-
chonitis. Soma think, therefore, that after Philip had
died, and had • left a daughter, Herod married Herodias,
the wife of ills brother,. his law permitting- marriage when
children did not Survive. Since, however, it is not by any
Means clear to us that Philip had died, we think that Herod's
transgression of the law was yet greater, that he seduced the
wife of his brother while living." In the Ann,cils of Baro
-nius, vol. 1, page .80,_ it is stated-,--" We must not omit to
say that that passage of the Evangelists concerning Herod,
that he married his.brother's wife, was perverted-by the Mon-
tauists, who, in order to found the heresy concerning mono•
gamy, that it was not lawful for a widow to marry again, and
that they might be able to prove this from the Gospel, added,
as they incorrectly read, that Herod married the wife of his
deceased brother, as Tertullian (ad Marc. 1, 4,,chap.'34),
who held the same opinion with them, read. But he wrote
these things, when he was writing against Marcie; who
treated the Gospel with contempt ; when, however, he wrote
against the Catholics, whom he calls Psychichi, in his book
De Monogamia, he abstains from any false citation of that
kind." A note appended alleged Tertullian to have become a
Montanist. Noldius De Vita -et Gestis geroclum says
" This woman, Herodias (the daughter not of Aretas, King of
the Arabians, as Jerome pretends, in Matthew 14, but of
Aristobulus).,Herod the Tetrarch having seen at the house. of
-his brother-Herod, when he turned aside to visit him on his
way to. Rome, made lois wife, contrary to the laws, having
taken her away from- her lawful husband, who was yet alive,
though, Augustine iu vain...denies this," In the Chronicon
Paschaleit is stated :—" And Josephus relates that it was on
account of-Herodias, the wife of Philip, Herod's brother, that
St. John wus beheaded. For Herod had put away his yet sur-
viving wife, to whom he had been lawfully married, she being
-the daughter. of Aretas, Kinglet' the Arabians, and had; more-
over, separated Herodias from her husband while ho was yet
living, having also on her account put John: to death." Set-
den " De Jitre Naturali" argued that, if we' understood Jose-
phus aright, we should find the case did_ not come under
Leviticus xviii., 16, but was simply a case of adultery :
" Atquai ita sane ad legem illam de fratria leviro ducendares
attinere nequibat, sed ad illam qua aliens uxor cuique inter-
dicitur." The noble lord contended that the testimony of
'these authorities, fairly construed, ought to satisfy their lord-
ships, and even the right rev. prelate to whom he had before
alluded, that the case of Herod and Herodias was wholly irre-
levant to the" discussion. Under the Mosaic law it was enjoined
that, when a man died without issue his brother should marry
the widow. Marriage with a deceased wife's sister was an ana-
logouS-alliance, and might be sanctioned by a parity of reason-
ing. If the marriage with a deceased wife's sister were immo-
ral, that with a deceased brother's wife could scarcely be ex-
empted from censure ; yet the latter conduct had the express
authority of Scripture. It was not to be imagined that the
Almighty would have given his approval to a practice which
could under any possible combination of circumstances operate
to the injury of morals. Some right rev. prelates had asserted
that the clergy were prohibited from celebrating such mar-
riages as the present bill was intended to legalise ; but it w..s
worthy of observation that there was no instance on record of
a clergyman-being punished for (loin so. The clergy of some
of the most populous parishes in a petition presented 4c) their
lordships' house, stated that this prohibition was productive
of unhappiness; and in some cases of immorality, and they
therefore prayed for its removal. The act of the noble and
learned lord not now present (Lord Lyndhurst) load placed
their lordships in a dilemma. A number of those marriages
had been contracted, although the ecclesiastical law declared
them' incestutins, and the noble and learned lord's bill, which
waspassed without a dissentient voice, declared them legal.
[The Bishop of Exeter—" No, no!"] The right rev,, pre-
late dissented from this, because he had sonde crotchet that
the ecclesiastical courts had still , the power of punishing
these persons. He had no hesitation in saying, on the autho-
rity of ,Sir W. Follett, that had the ecclesiastical courts
meddled with them the courts of law would have interposed;
and even had the courts of law remained quiet; Parliament
would have stopped in to prevent any such exercise of- eccle-
siastical Owen Much had been said lately with regard to
the law, of Scotland on this point. A remarkable-judgment
had lately been pronounced by one of the Lords of Session with
regard to this subject. The Lord-Ordinaryhad said :
" Marriage,' says St., Paul, is honourable in all,' and
against every restriction by mere human authority on the
liberty of marriage the Protestant authority stands recorded.
Accordingly, the Scottish law of restraint ou marriage is
avowedly founded on the Divine prohibitions. Thedoctrine of
the reformed ohurches is, that marriage shall be as free as the
law of God has left it ; and the Divine law as coutaiued in the
18th" chapter of Leviticus is imported into the Scottish statute
of 1567, chap. 14, and is referred -to iu the next statute of
1567, chap. 15. All connexions expressly prohibited by the
Divine law in this 18th chapter of Leviticus are declare, by
the statute law of Scotland (1567, chap. 14) to be incestuous
and punishable with deat.h. To find the express , prohibition
against marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, it . ne-
cessary only to examine. the Scriptures, but more particu-
larly to 'construe the 18th chapter of Leviticus, and 'if
there is no -express prohibition there the connexion is net
incestuous, 'There loss been no such series of decisions, no
such solemn deliverance, practice
and no such settled judicial
as to amount to an authoritative construction of the statute,
and relieve. the Court from the necessity of construing it by
the canon of the 18th chapter of Leviticus. Then, the de-
claration in the " Confession of Faith," and the Parliamen-
tary ratification of that confession, though binding on the
Presbyterian Church, and though, . perhaps, binding on the
state of a Presbyterian country to civil effects, is not binding
-as a legislative construction of the prohibition of the Divine
law to the effect of creating a capital crime. The question,
What says the statute?' throws us back on the other ques-
tion, What is expressly,: prohibited' in the 18th chapter of
Leviticus ? Nothing less than an express prohibition can be
sufficient.' If there is no empress prohibition, it is not within
the statute. On this point the Lord Ordinary would wil-
lingly defer to the authority of the' Confession of Faith,' but
in this Protestant country, which refuses to be ecclesiastical
authority the right to create or declare a crime, it is impos-
sible to escape from the responsibility of forming and inde-
pendent opinion. With great diffidence, therefore, and with
unfeigned respect for the many learned and excellent persons
who have arrived at au opposite conclusion, the Lord Ordi
nary ventures to express his opinion that there is in the Di-
vine law, and more especially in the 18th chapter of Leviti-
cus, no such express prohibition' of this marriage as to make

it incestuous under the statute."
These marriages were permitted in every country of Europe;
even in Russia, in some cases. In France, which was a Ro-
man Catholic country—not recognising, however, the Council
of Trent—and where marriage was a civil contract, permis-
sion to celebrate them was granted as a matter of course by
the Minister of Justice. He would now refer to a country more
•resembling England in language and laws—The United States
of America:. There it was not only.the opinion of the heads
of thglaw, anlohg whOln were Chattcelliir Kent and Mr. Jus-
tice ROM but also of the bishops of the episcopal Church,