The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-22 00:00:00

which Christianity alone can develope in their full
intensity ; and all "prohibitions to marry" thus,
are but the offspring of an impure, ascetio pru-
rience of imagination in the first instance ; and,
afterwards, of narrow-minded ecclesiastical bigotry,
seeking to perpetuate even in the 19th century of
Christianity the odious restrictions and artificial
sins invented by the ignorance of the dark ages.
We hold that it is the opponents of such marriages
who, if not impure-minded themselves, are yet the
heirs to the tainted doctrines of men denounced
by the Apostle PAUL, who, denied marriage by
their Manichasan creeds, indemnified themselves
by living, as a body, in fornication, and by invent-
ing for others all kinds of prohibitions and limi-
tations which a polluted fancy could suggest.
We appeal also to Lord DERBY, on the ground
of the doubtful state of the law. As it now stands
the judge, called in as assessor, has given a de-
cided opinion against the validity of marriages
contracted abroad by Eaglish subjects with the
sister of a deceased wife ; but the judge by whom
the judgment of the Court must be pronounced
took time to consider it, and the time has already
extended to three months. Either he cannot make
up his mind, or he is reluctant to contravene de-
cidedly the opinion of Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, or
he hopes that Parliament will step in, as it ought
to do, and by a declaratory Act, worthy of the
present views of ecclesiastical liberty, pronounce
that since GOD has not forbidden such unions,
neither shall English law forbid them. But is it
to be endured that thousands of innocent married
persons shall live in hourly apprehension of hav-
ing an honourable and holy union branded by law
with the name of fornication, thousands of their
innocent children expecting, also, to be deprived
of the legal privileges of legitimacy ? If the case
is to be pressed, and judgment given, we must
lope that the onus of attempting to degrade so
many families will be retained on the shoulders of
those who wish to do it, and that those who desire
to narrow our legal rights will be the parties com-
pelled to appeal to the House of Lords. But we
appeal earnestly to Earl DERRY to earn for him-
self the reputation which some one will certainly
ultimately gain, of carrying a bill establishing the
lawfulness of all marriages not contrary to the
principles and laws of Christianity.

We believe Lord DERBY to be a sincere friend
to religious liberty. His son is conspicuously so,
and enjoys for that reason a well-deserved popu-
larity ; others of his Cabinet are well known to be
haters of priestly and ecclesiastical intolerance.
Now we put it to his Lordship whether it is not
a gross piece of oppression to compel all the Dis-
miters of England, and the large number of
Churchmen who on this point agree with them, to
bow to the comparatively small minority, who, on
religious grounds, object to the marriages in ques-
tion ? The Church of England, we may grant, I
prohibits such marriages. But all Dissent3rs, we
believe, and probably the majority of Churchmen,
hold them to be agreeable to GOD'S word, and not
prohibited by natural instinct or conscience. Lot,
then, perfect liberty be the law, and none could
complain. No one who thought these unions
unlawful in the sight of GOD need enter into
them ; his liberty would be untouched ; but for
what earthly reason can he demand that his reli-
gions scruples shall be law for his neighbour ? It
is sheer persecution, surely, and nothing else, for ,
the rigid Churchman to force his religious con- I
victions on his neighbour by such heavy penalties
as those of declaring his marriage a legal nullity,
and his children illegitimate.
We believe we are in a position to show that,
notwithstanding all which has been done, mis-
takenly done, marriage with a deceased wife's
sister is still in accordance with the statute law of

England; and that as the Canons of the Church are
not binding, except as any of them may have
been incorporated with the law of the land, it
may yet be made to appear that the liberty we
demand is legally ours. We have not room here
to discuss the question, but if we are not mistaken
the legal argument from 32 HENRY TM., cap.
38, is unanswerable ; its demonstrable intent
is to make all marriages lawful which are not for-
bidden by God's Word ; and this is the only sta-
tute in force which can be appealed to, to show
the intention of the Legislature in regard to de-
grees of affinity and consanguinity. But while
fully confident in the correctness of the legal argu-
ment in our favour from this Act—an Act, be it
remembered, which Lord LYNDHURST'S Act of
1835 does not touch—we still think it would be
infinitely better to legislate directly on the subject,
than to leave it to the expense, annoyance to
individuals, and, in technical legal matter; we
must add, the chances of the decisions of Law
Courts. That a judge should even have had a
branch of this question tl►ree months under his
consideration is alone decisive of the necessity of
legislation. No judgment resting on such per-
plexing arguments can settle a great national
question.
We trust, therefore, that Lord DERBY will see it
to be both his duty and interest to take up this
question. His predecessors justly claimed credit for
a great reform in matrimonial law and its admi-
nistration ; but the advantages of the late Acts
will not be felt by one in ten compared with the
number of those whom Lord DERBY might now
benefit. Amongst our liberal contemporaries,
none have more steadily demanded fair play for
the new Ministers than we have, but we must look
to them to justify the belief we have expressed
that, under the name of Conservatives, they will
introduce quite as many, and as good, reforms as
their predecessors did under the name of Liberals.
They have now an excellent opportunity to in-
troduce one—they should not let it slip.