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

ROYAL OLYMPIC THEATRE.
Lessee and Manager, Mr. Alfred Wigan.
THIS EVENING
STILL WATEUS RUN DEEP.

After which will be produced a New and doubly-moral, though
excessively old, Melodramatic Fairy Extravaganza, entitled
THE DISCREET PRINCESS; or, the Three Glass Distaffs.
In which Messrs. Emery, F. Robson, H. Cooper, Miss Marston,
and Miss Maskell will appear.

ROYAL SURREY THEATRE.
Lessees, Messrs. Shepherd and Creswiek.
THIS EVENING,
Will be performed a new Drama, entitled
HOW WE LIVE IN THE WO -MD OF LONDON.

Followed by

SARAH'S; YOUNG MAN.
To conclude with
THE POS MA VA KNOCK.

ASTLEY'S ROYAL ANIPHITHFATRE.
Lessee and Manager. Mr. win. Cooke.
THIS EVENING,
Lord Byron's MA ZEPPA and the WILD HORSE.
After which, the skilful and varied SCENES in the CIRCLE, with
other Entertainments.
ro conclude with EvGL AND'S HARVEST HOME and GRAND
NATIONAL STEEPLECHASE.
8,,x-office open fr m E even till Four. State Manager, Mr. W.
West. Equestrian Director, Mr. W. Cooke, jun.

E NIMA. STANLEY'S "SEVEN AGES OF WOMA.N."
Evening performances as usual, on Idondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays
and Fridays, at 13 o'clock.
Admission—Back Seats, Is.; Centre Seats, 2s. ; Stalls, 3s.
SAINT MARTIN'S lIALL, Long-acre.

lIIGEI WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

T DAY—Morn. 16 min. aft. s—Evening 39 min. aft. 5
T 1-Nfonnow—Morn. 2 min. aft. 6—Evening 32 min. aft. 6

THE WEATHER—SUN OFFICE, APRIL 26.
THERMOMETER, IN THE SHADE.
70 —highest since noon yesterday.
52—lowest this morning and during tho night.
63 —this day at noon.
BAROMETER, 29'55.
WIND, S.W.—Fresh, with cloudy, mild weather, sun-
shine and rain.
Heavy rain came on last night, with heavy clouds from
S.W.

1
Vt.ii

^~~c

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 1856.

The Marriage Law Amendment Bill was last
night refused a second reading in the Upper
House by a majority of 19, in which the Bishops
largely figured, as well as in the debate. The
amendment(!) was proposed by a Right Rev. Pre-
late, and three others spoke against the measure,
while only two lay lords followed on the same side,
and yet not one of the number ventured to assert
that a clear and express prohibition of these mar-
riages vas to be found in any part of Scripture.
The whole argument, if argument it could be
called, was based on the usages of the early
Church, which might just as well be resorted to
in order to enforce the celibacy of the clergy, and
to prove that every one of these pious occupants
of the Episcopal Bench were living in a state
opposed to the Divine law. We would venture
to remind them that One, whose authority they
will not-dare to repudiate, in speaking of similar
arguments, declared, "Ye m tke the Word of
GOD of none effect by your traditions." How,
then, can they endeavour, by their traditions, to
dispense with the sacred writings—which at least
a large proportion of the many persons " of re-
ligious and moral character," so deeply interested
in the question, are disposed to regard as the
sole rule of faith—the only authorities by which
they will permit themselves to be bound ?
The Bishop of OXFORD, the principal speaker
against the measure, founded his opposition
mainly on the ecclesiastical law, forgetting that
the great and rapidly-increasing body of Pro-
testant Dissenters unequivocally repudiate that
law, and that their consciences should not be
bound, in a country professing to accord unli-
mited civil and religious liberty to every
professor of Christianity without exception.
Even in the Establishment itself a large propor-
tion of the clergy and laity deolaro that there is
nothing either immoral or reprehensible in such
unions, and yet a minority are permitted to impose
undue restrictions on the consciences of their
fellow-men, debarring them from the exercise of
' the most sacred and valuable privilege belonging
to mankind—the right of selecting a partner for
life—of giving a kind, loving mother to their
orphan children. Verily, we may exclaim with
LUTEER—"Perish, therefore, those cursed tra-
ditions of men, which have been brought in only
to multiply dangers, offences, and miseries in the
Church."
It is also remarkable that the question of expe-
diency, or social inconvenience, was equally
avoided by the lay and clerical opponents of the
Bill. They clearly perceived that on such a point
they had no foundation, and, therefore, judici-
ously—for they also are wise in their generation
—rode off on a collateral issue, the canons and

xaditions of the Church. They advisedly and

deliberately avoided the only ground—other than
a Divine prohibition—on which the restriction
could be justified, and thus practically relin-
quished the argument to the advocates of civil

and religious liberty.
There is nothing to show that in the earlier
ages these marriages were prohibited or censured
in the Christian Church. St. PAUL, who espe-
cially directed his attention to the subject of
marriage, never alluded to it in any way, and as
these unions were frequent then as now, there
can be but little doubt that he would have done
so if lie considered them in any way objectionable.
In the Jewish Church "it was distinctly under-
stood to be permitted, and on this point neither
the Divine law, nor the Rabbis, nor historical
Judaism, leaves room for the least doubt." Such
is the statement of Dr. ADLER, Chief Rabbi of the
Jews in Great Britain, an unexceptionable witness
on such a question. After some centuries they
were prohibited in the Roman Catholic Church as
a "matter of discipline." But the same power
that created the difficulty, found means of over-
coming it by granting dispensations wherever the
applicant possessed a golden key to unlock the
fetters impose I not by Divine, but merely human
authority. It was the " scraple,s of conscience"
of a sanguinary and licentious tyrant, who proved
that he had other means of dissolving the nuptial
tie whenever he became tired of his partner, or
desirous of a new one, that led to the movement
in the sixteenth century ; and that HENRY migh t
indulge his caprice, dud ELIZABETH be regarded
as legitimate, the Canons were framed, although
not without considerable hesitation and contro-
versy, which included marriage with a deceased
wife's sister, as prohibited by Scripture. There
were then, as at other times, Prelates willing to
sanction anything desired by one who possessed
the power of rewarding or punishing. Had HENRY
desired to maintain indissolubly his connection
with CATHERINE of Arragon,
the obedient
Bishops would have obeyed the injunction, and
it is to his licentious and fickle disposition that
we are indebted for this most inequitable and
impolitic law.

Up to 1835 these marriages were not abso-
lutely void, but merely voidable. If no proceed-

.ngs were taken within the lives of both parties,

ndeed:unless a final decree had been pronounced,

,hey were to all intents and purposes valid and

binding, and the children legitimate. The cases

where malicious scoundrels, or greedy relatives,

interfered under a pretended anxiety for the

soul's health of the parties were rare iudeed.