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

WEDNESDAY EVENING,

i
stop where this I3ill. stopped. Ev-n the late Bishop of
Llendati had said it did not go for enough, and that
there ought to be a thorough revisten ot the law of
marriage. If their Lordships glee any eneouragreneet
to this B;11, they an tat be prepared to adopt all that
had beemadopt- din G 'many. Referrii g again te the
report he found the opinions of c stein ef the clergy
quoted; but the Irish clergy spoke of the measure wi h
abhorrence—as revolting to their feelings and most
unchristian, In Scotland the opinion of the clergy was
decidedly against it; and in their confession of faith all
marriages within the degrees of consanguinity or affi-
nity weradeecribed as incestuous. The Advocate-Ge-
neral staeld that such marriages were held by the people
generally in great abhorrence. The abode Earl hed
wisely exduiled Scotland altogether from his Bill; out
what then bccanee of the alleged principles ot right and
justice on which the measure was said to bo founded?
Was the hw of nature and justice to be made an atf.dr
of geography?—(Hear, hear.) Against whole bodies
of clergy in Scotland and Ireland the opinion only
of some "ew individuals was to be place?. But
what of the Church of England? By her 93th canon,
agreed to in solemn convocation, she ha I pro-
nounced thee mate-lazes contrary is the law of Gel
The Noble Earl adeged that the law of God aesthete
expressly forbade there; but would he se; no his opiniee
against the Church at large, thus solemnly declared ?
Though tin late Bishop of Lletedalf WAS entitled to aid
the honour which that bench could confer, he derived
none of that honour from giving the sanction of his
high name •in the conclusion of these commissioners,
One portion of the report would lead to the conclusion
that there was an absolute negation of all moral feeling
on the subject of marriage amongst cenain classes; but,
strange to say, this was totally contradicted by the evi-
dence. Thecase of an officer was cited; but he stated
his ignorancE of these marriages being fee bidden by the
Church. The Greek Church, extending over a country
as large anal )opulous as the whole of western Christen-
dom, enforced its law throughout its jurisdiction,
without excettion. In Scotland, such marriages, it had
been shown, vere regarded with abborwence; and in Ire-
land the minis of the people had never been polluted
with such doe rives as were now sought to be inculcated.
The committee themselves admitted that if parties c ruld
but be convinced that these marriages were contrary to
the Divine lar they would abstain from them. Every
one admitted that marriage between brothers and sisters
in the earliest periods of the world took place; it was
known that tilt world had been originally peopled in this
way; consequently that degree of union was net thou
unlawful; and the question ought, therefore, to be con-
sidered with regard to the existing state of society, and
by the light of .Christian principle. This Bill asked
Parliament to make valid certain marriages which it
distinctly declared to be incestuous and contrary to law.
—(Hear, hear.) ~ The third clause reserved the rights
of the ecclesiastical courts, and declared that nothing
therein contained should affect the doctrine of
the Church of England with regard to those mar-
riages, that doctrine being that they were incestuous.
It had been armed that if the Divine law was not quite
clear the doubt ought to be given in favour of these
marriages; bat it should be remembered that ever since
the second ceettry of Christianity such had been held to
be the Divine late. Believing that God had declared
these marriages:, to be sinful, let their Lordships beware
of giving their eviction to such a measure. By doine,
so they could not make that which was incest not incest.
If the House was bitting in its judicial capacity, it would
be bound to declare such marriages incestuous, as they
were held to be so by the cccleeieetical law and the
judges of the land. He exhorted them, then, not to yield
to any feeling in favour either of those of their own rank
or others who hal fallen into error but to beware of in-
fringing, by any act of theirs, that which had al Nays
been regarded as the law of God.—(Hear.)
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S f iund himself in a
difficult position in respect of the Bill. He telt com-
pelled to go a certain way with its proposer, and also to
differ from him la . some particulars. Ile ddf _ired from
those who made the law of the Church depend on the
interpretation of the passages in Scripture in question.
He was not proffered to say that the prohibition of such
marriages was based on the law of God. Tho passages
referred to weneimore ceremonial than doctrinal, and
applied rather will° moral than to the religious law.
It did not, thetlfore, follow that every ordinance on
each subjects wile- a general and immutable law. The
law existed, and 'as necessary to be designated at some
point. It' the .ihesagee in Leviticus aces solely con-
sulted, the prohibition might no doubt still bt assumed
to exist; but theta was no express prohibition in fact,
and the introduction of such marriages was a mere matter
of inference. The marriages interded to be legalised
were not alone net expressly prohibited, but were tacitly
sanctioned. ThOe sati wit was, in his opinion, one on
which the Hoteas lead a full right to legislate; anal
the legislation shpuld be nut entirely on civil grounds
nor entirely on"teligious. He considered the law in
question a law of that description, and he there-
fore wished it s- to be permanent. Au important
feature in the' case was, however, that this
opinion was not the opinion of the immense body of
the clergy of the Church. believed, in spite of all he
had heard, anat.-the law could not be called ineffectual
and inoperative. The simple question was, whether the
subject at issue fetqnd a responstve echo is the bosom of
the community. Ile was of opinion that it did. The
voice of Ireland 'was unanimous against the Bill; the
voice of Scotland was almost tquelly SO. It was because
he was deeply impressed with the danger of a change
to the institutions of the country tha", he was opposed
to that change in this in,ta eco. Thu law was not in-
itu-atd .0; inhooucti the cbar,..cter of the in-
dividuals who had been idled, d to; there were, no doubt,
cases of suffer:rig:hut he did not consider them cases of
hardthin• fiat iS'ad bound to consider the state of feeling
as represent, d by the petitiene thet hal bee's laid upon
the table itt the Iloase. The Hone hail been told thaat
a society he taese termed to advocate the qeeetion, and
they had publithenia pap-c, which lie lied no doubt vast
in every one's hatd.w, but, if there was no other argu-
ment aetaiost theatatill, that paper would furnish hies
with zullitticnt tottypose it. One of ace evils that, were
intended to be- elituedied by the Bill vies of a vart ieg
and uncertain nature, capable of being increased or les-
sened by legislation, but with regard to Vie other evil
insisted on by ttivilldble Earl, it was inherent in human
nature and couldente be ma t by any legislation. On these
grounds he took hieestend, Red althouele the measure
might afford grAficati6n: to some, it would bring
jealousy, distrust-Raid alarm into other families. There-
fere, he could nevelaconsent to share the raJpensibility of
the Bill with the Neble Earl.
The &snap ofe4OR‘VICH would vote against the
Bill, as he was- deOdedlye opposed to it. lie did not,
however, think itnaely itsfringezritut on any Scriptural
command. He stiNgild net make that house a school for
Biblical criticism-Oast it was eeli known that the Scrip-
ture which contaitied tl-isre presumed prohibition of thee()
marriages was given to the Jewish people. And it was
a remarkable fact that they never interpreted the passage
in the sense of a prohibition. It was nut to be s-opposed
ihat the Divine lawsehould contain any contradiction.
When the case of a woman:: marrying. her deceased sis-
ter's letp.band was bienaght More one higher than tae
Scriptures themselves, he cast no censure upon
Whatever, howevViebad the t ffect of weakening merality
was to be objected std on grounds, and he eaw
in this Bill a tenderly to that effect. For many year,
the law on the su'tjelt was strictly prollibitery; to repell
those statutes nowatetuld be the direct and couplets
sanction of these raaerihges. He spoke with the greatest
respect of the promoters of this Bill, bet he felt helped
to sly it would-••eittlate the most-sacred feelings of
the religious woxid.:- The. women of England were most
deeply affected by- thiS -Bill, and he would undertake to
say that ninetsanine cut of a hundred of them were op-
' nosedeo it. The Rill: if passed into law, would dieturts
, the hest feelings of taltitan nature—feelithp which they
ought to hold sacred; fend which exercised so important
an influence on theellotati and social welfare of tho com-
munity. At the ettitieeratto ho acknowledged that the
marriage law, as iffnaorw existed, bora hardly on some
portions of the cot unity, for toot was something
approaching to bigotry and intolerence in putting a cer-
taiii interpretation oniee marriage law, and then re :king
all other parties abide by that interpretation. Fled the
Noble Lord based hia measure on the principle of not
interfering with the reli4icue observances of the Jews,
or had he claimed a siarbar exemption for any other body
of religionists, he ehould rot have been indisposed to
support it; but he could not agree to a measure, which.
however it might give relief to comparatively few, would
at the same time sacrifice the comfort and domestic
happiness of the largest portion of the community in
the United Kingdom of England, Ireland, and especially
Scotland.
Lord GAGE (who was most indistinctly heard in the
gallery) was understood to support the Bill, contending
that any law which restricted a man in. the exercise of
a civil right that concerned his happiness and comfort
was a tyrannical law and ought to be repealed, unless it
could be shown that it was a Divine law, or at least that
it was so indisptesable and so peremptorily expedient
that its maintenance could be justified on that ground
alone. The Jews had no such prohibitions; neither
were the Roman
such marriages, by means of dispensations. There was
no scriptural prohibition corresponding with the present
state of the law, which was only sustained by excessive
from its repeal had
Catholics precluded from engaging in
modern -sensibility. The hardships which it inflicted on
so many persons were very great, whilst the dangers ap-
prehendedpetitions which been greatly exeggerated.
The Noble Lord then referred to the rarge number of
and implored their Lerdships not to perpetuate the ex-
isting evil which it sought to rem
opinion upon the subkct of remove.
the office he had the
had been presented iii favour of the Bill,
Lord CAMPBELL, from .
honour to hold, felt it his duty to express his
a measure which sought to
wake so important uud fatal a chimp in the law of Eng-
land. Ile would keep their Lordships but a very short
space of time. The arguments on both sides—so much
had been Po
familiar to their Lordships. The arguments egeinst the
Bill had been that night reiterated by the Moat Rev.
Prelate in a manner which
must produce an important
impression, not only on the minds of their Lordships, but '
on the mind of the nation. 118 h-ad listened with de-
light to the opinions he bad heard thug delivered that
night, arid he trusted that the agitation to which the •
Noble Viscount who had last addressed their Lordships
had referred, was neoriy drawing to a close. He most
likewise express his athoiration of the manner in which
the subject bad heal introduced by the Noble Earl who
sat at the table. The Noble Earl had shown great
research, great learning, great ecweness, and power-
. ful reasoning; he was actuated by the purest and
most honourable. motives. So ware those who had
preceded him in either House of Parliament. Those
individnais whose names laud been mentioned by the
Noble Lord had been actuated by the most disinterested
motives, so were many of the petitioners who had ap-
proached their Lordship,' Home in favour of the Bill.
But he (Lord Campbell) would not do his duty unless he
reminded their Lordships of the manner in which the
agitation on the subject had been begun and carried on,
for the purpose of bolo; the ruettstue p.ized. They