The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-24 00:00:00

INPERIA.

AMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS. IV _ESTERDAY.)
ROYAL COM
The Royal tv.aent was given, by corninieeion, to the
foleeieg :—Fu de i Dinn HeicaeF Ferest (Allot-
meet Ceneen.), Cniety Poloeiee Jeiisdie
rat Pest-T.le.: N eo i
Advance:: .Prteieriinien (Irelee.(l), iolui,eep
Franchise, Universities and Colleges E.t
Ballot Suspension ; Churches, &c. (Ireland) ; Coafirwa-
tion of Execntors, &c., Ecclesiastical Cerperations
Leasing ; Nisi Prins Court, &o. (Ireland) ; Stanhope and
WolsirOam Rectoris' Law of Felee Pretences
Amendment, Jews' Oaths, Mareages (Mosco-.v,
Tahiti, &c ), Joint-stock Companies Amendment
Acts, Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continnance, Chant ..ble
Trusts'Act Continuance, Copyhold and Eneiwaire Com-
miseioners (Indemnity), Duhlin and Meath Railway,
Ilesketh Marsh, Devon Valley, Birkenhead Improve-
ment Commissioners (0-as and Water), Ox'ord, Worces•
ter, and Wolverhampton Railway, Windsor New Road,
Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway, Cry-
stal Palace District Gas, Whitehaven Junction Rail-
way, Lancaster and Carlisle Railway (No. 2), Che-ter
and Holyhead Railway, London and North-We-tern
Railway (additional works), St. Leonard's, Shoreditch,
Parish, Stockton, Middlesborough, and YarencuthWater,
North Yorkshire and Cleveland Railway, Severn Valley
Railway (Extension of Time), Manchester Junction,
Athenry and Tuam Railway, Manchceter, Sheffiel I, and
Lincolnshire and Great Northern Railway Companies,
East Kent Railway (Western Extension), F,rriaartine
and Buchan Railway, Shrewsbury and Welcbpool Rail-
way, East Suffolk, Yarmouth, and Iladdi,coe and
Lowestoft and Beecles Railway Companies Amalgams
tion, Cleveland Railway, Stockton and Darlington Rail
way (Durham Lines), Stockton and Darlinc;ton Rail
way (Ncrth Riding Lines), Stockton and Darlington
and Wear Valley, &e., Railway Companies Amalgama-
tion, Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway, Hove Im-
provement, North Briti-h and .Altrinebam Railway
(No. 2), Redditch Railway, Westminster Paltc3 'Hui el
Company, Earl of Fife's Ileate, Sir Berjaniin Hall's
Estate, and liolroyd'a Estate.
The Royal Commmissioners were the Lord Chancel-
lor, Lord St. Leanards, and Lord Cranworth.
Their lordships adjourned during pleasure.
The LORD CHANCULLOR took his seat on the wool•
sack at five o'clock.
Petitions in favour of the legalisation of marriage
with a deceased wife's sister were presented by Lord
Ebury, Viscount Torrington, Lord Gage, and Lord
Wrottesley.

THIRD READINGS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Great
Southern of India Rail way Company, the Lancashire,
Yorkshire, and East Lancashire Railway Compel. y ;
Limerick and Castle Connell Railway, and South
Wales Railway (New Railway) bills were read a third
time and passed.
ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY'S BILL.
Oa the motion that this bill be read a third time,
The Earl of DERBY moved the insertion of a clause
which would place the. American on the same footing as
the English company.
A short conversation ensued between Lord REDES-
DALE and Lerd STANLEY of ALDMILEY, at the termina-
tion of which the third reading was postponed until
Monday next.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. •
Lord GAGE said he had most unexpectedly been called
upon to propose the second reading of this bill, and no-
thing short of the importance of the question involved in
the bill could have induced him to have undertaken the
task. The measure to which he now asked their lord-
ships to give a secorwireading was to remedy a grievance
of which a large portion of the population of the country
complained, and they naturally felt that redress would
be given, provided feeir lordship saw no sound reason
egainst doing so. If they rejected the bill then those who
were in favour of it would come to the conclusion that
there did exist some reasons why the relief now scught for
should not he given. He had heard it said that there existed
both spiritual and religious reasons why such a bid should
not pass, but whenever the objectors to the measure had
been asked to point out the Scriptural oljections they had
invariably failed to do so. A great deal of importance
had been attributed to a particular chapter in the Book
of Leviticus, hut he contended that nothing in the verse
forbade a man to marry Lis deceased wife's sise r—(hear)
—on the contrary, he (Lord Gage) was of opinion
that the verse gave a clear permisssion to con-
tract such a marriage ; and he was further cf opinion
the canons of the Church and not the law of God
forbade the marriage. The noble lord then al-
luded to the social view of the geeetion, and
said he believed that the wife's sister would
form a much better stepmother to the wife's children
than a total stranger. He also alluded to the increasing
majorities by which the bill had passed the 'Henn of
Commons, and declared that there was a strong feeling
in favour of the bill throughout the country.
Lord REDESDALE said the noble viscount had
treated this question on two grounds, the religious
ground and the social ground. As regarded the religious
view of the subject, it was impossible to deny that the
texts most referred to were open to various interpreta-
tions, but when difficulties arose they should be guided
by a consideration of the consequences which would na-
turally flow from a lax interpretation. The real question
in this case was, " What is marl iige; what is the relation-
ship thereby established ? ' Tory were distinctly tr Id in
Scripture that the man .and w fa became " one a ,1,,"
and 11 b sing the case the re'all.,us of the one neces-
sarily become the re.letieus of the other. (Hear.) Unities
toot simple principle were acted upon, society ine-
vitably got involved in difficulties from which there was
no escape, The noble viscount had asked- who c ,old ex
pest anything but objections to the bill from women ?
In that view he entirely concurred. This was purely a
woman's bill. The man di] not propose tbat his wife
should have a right to marry his brother, but ho came
forward with his own lustful purposes and said, " Let
me marry my wife's sister," the two standing in precisely
the same position as regarded affinity. (Elear.) If this
bill passed, why should they not go further Why should
not a man be allowed to marry his stepdaughter ? There
as no blood relationship in that case ? (Hear.) Or wiry
should nut a stepson marry his father's widow ? From
such things as these the minds of all men naturally
shrunk ; and yet there was no security against them if
you once got rid of the deductions arising from the fact
of man and wife being one flesh. What was a man to
call his wife's sister if this bill passed Was he still to
call her sister or was he to call her cousin ? If she were
Lis sister during his wife's life, she was also his slater
after her death. The canon which erebibited these mar-
rages was almost as old as the church itself, and was by
no means, as it had been represented to be, an innova-
tion of the time ef the Reformation. As to the bill of
1835, that bill did not alter the law on the sui,jsct any
further than this, that a hereas before the marriage was
voidable if anybody chose to object to it, it was then
made void from the beginning. As regarded the social
ground, it appeared to him that the greatest possible ic-
jury would be done in families if the near and close re-
lationship which existed between persons connected by
marriage were interfered with, as it necessarily worth?
be by this bill. It was said that there had always been
a great number of persona who had evaded the restric-
tion, and that this was a reason for altering the law. If
they were merely to consider how many persons gratified
their sensual appetites withouthe sanction of the law,
there were a number of other things to which this argu-
ment would apply. He feared that if they went among
the dwellings of the lower orders they would find in many
quarters connexions existing which no one weal think
of sanctioning by law. (Hear.) In all the attempts which
had been made to alter the law difficulties had arisen
from the nature of the connexion between a man and his
wife's sister. In the first bill which was introduced for
that purpose after the passing of the bill of 1835, there
was a clause providing that the marriage should not be
allowed if there had been any adulterous connexion be-
tween the parties during the lifetime of the deceased.
Thus deceased wife's sister was sliced on a different foot-
ing from other women. In the present bel, the second
clause provided that a past marriage should not be valid
if either of the parties to it had contracted a second mar-
riage with another parson. That was a clause which
would give rise to great difficulty. The bill confined the
right to any dignity, title, or honour to those to whom
it was vested before the passing of the act. A very curi-
ous question might arise out of that clause taken in con-
nection with the sth. By the latter, Ireland and Scotland
were excluded from the operation of the bill, not only as
regarded dignities, titles, and honours, but also as re-
garded property ; and as there were many members cf
that house who held titles in the three kingdoms the re-
sult might be that one set of children would be legiti-
mate as regarded one set of titles, and another set of
children as regarded another set of titles. The measure
appeared to him to be both itioperf, et in itself and highly
objectionable in principle; he believed that social evils
of the gravest character would arise from the passing of
it ; he believed it to be contrary to the 'Lew of God ; and
entertaining these views, be felt bound to move that it
be read a second time that day six months. (Cheers )
Lord LYNDHURST said he had not risen to address
their lordahips on the general question, but the noble
lor'a who had just spoken Laing alluded to the bill'which
was passed in 1835, and with which his name was con-
nected, he wished to give a brief history of that bill. His
attention was drawn to the state of the law with respect
to marriages that a ere voidable during the joint lives of
the parties. The consequence was that the ultimate
status of the children must remain uncertain for 10, 20,
30, or even 50 years. A person might hav
to succ e been ronug
nt
theit
up as the heir of his parents, expecting eetetld i
eem
ordinary way to the family estates under ash _
and all at once, after he had married, and
be
the was
the father of children, a proceeding might ins
for annulling the marriage of his parente,
.and the result
be his being bastardised. He considered this a very cruel
and inconvenient state of the law, and the object of the
bill which he brought in was to provide a remedy. The
bill had nothing to do with the disallowance of th mar-
riage ; its object was to protect the legitimacy of the
children, it being provided that if that were not ques-
tioned within two years it should not lea questioned at
all. He said nothing with regard to the parents ; his
proposition was confined to the children. He bad in his
hand a copy of the bill as it was laid on their lordehips'
table. The title of it was, " An Act to limit the time for
commencing suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts, so far as
theymay affect the children of parents married within
the prohibited degrees." The bill relater? only to parents
and was ordered to be printed in the form in which he
proposed it, on the first of Jude, 1835. There was but
one enictivg clause, and it was as follows :—" Whereas
the children of parents married within the prohibited de-
grees are by law legitimate, unless such marriages be de-
clared void by sentence of the Ecclesiastic ICourt during
the life-time of their parents, and it being unreasonable
and unjust that the state and condition of children
born under such ciroutaatanceo should remain unset •

origin of the human race was from a mixture of bloods *
tied for so long a period, be it therefore enacted that the
children of parents married as aforesaid shall be and con-
such as people would now regard with horror; and as the
tinue leeitiraste, unless a suit be duly instituted for an-
"worst form of incest. The sin of ince3t, therefore,
ailing the tnarriaga of their parents within two year net he regarded as a sin against nature, bat a rozEhilyearn:asi .
The circumstance which led him to introduws that bill tion of divine wisdom and love to the race of man, in
was the marriage of a nulls lord of high rank who was a order from this prehibitiou to draw blessings upon
member of that house. His attention was drawn to the the race at large, which, but for this prohibition,
would
children and the succession of the eldest son, arid the re- net have been given: If this was the. true view itfol-
cult was, as in many other cares, that a particular iu- lowed that it was iu the power oftheSupr
time to enact
Supreme Lawgiver-
stance of heal- hip led to a general a'leviatien in the state for a vufficient advantage, at a particular
of the law. The belt was read a second time without op- that which was contrary to His ordinary loving enact- .
position, being generally approved by their lordships ; meat for the race, iu orderbieb b
tbeatseavt
waopuahritibceulaforrtimhe
but between the first and the second readings, a right some particular result, w
rev. prelate; for whose memory he entertained great re- good if the race, might be aceoamiished—the specialte
spect, and who possessed great influence in that house, object in the case referred to to ing to keep clear the line
owing to his position, his talents, and his masterly elo- of descent through which the Messiah was to be called.
(pence, had a conversation with him and a noble and The command in that case to raise up seed to the dead
learned friend of his now in the north on the subject, in brother was a supercession by the Supreme Lawgiver .
which be declared that he enlirelYslisapproved of the bill, for certain manifest purposes of the law which He was
and that in his opinion all such marriages ought to be de- pleased to lay down as the rule for the general welfare of
Glared void, observing that parties would then know His creatures, (Hear.) The noble lord said that it-
what was the law, and if they committed an offence seemed tole the general opinion that the religious argu-
against it they would take the consequences. The cense- meat was abandoned. He denied that. For himself—.
quences were that in-committee the whole character of and he believed he might also venture to say it for his'
the bill was entirely changed. By whom these amend- right rev, brethren—he said that they took heartily and
merits were moved be did not recollect. The now title of ae ani•ro the declaration of the church that such mix-
the bill was as follows tee" An act to render certain mar tures were— contrary to God's law, were incestuous, and
nines v ilid, and to alter the law with respect to certain therefore void from the beginning. They grounded this.
voidable marriages." It was enacted that tell marriages not only on the chapter of Leviticus, but en the New
which should thereafter be celebrated between persons Testament legislation on the subject. It was a mistake •
, to say that the main strain of the scriptural argument
within the prohibi ed degrees should ipso facto be void
not merely voidable. By another clause it was provided rested on a single text in Leviticus. As far as he remem-
that unless proceedings were instituted for the purpose bered the debates on this subect, that text had always
of annulling past marriages before the passing of the bill, been used by the advocates fur a change in the law as
no proceedings whatever should ever I elirtituted. Such being a text which shook the rest of the scriptural arg u-
was the history of the bill ; such was the result of the went. The scriptural argument from the Oid Testament
censultation with the right rev. prelate of whom he had rested mainly on the early part of the chap ter referred
before spoken. On rising he stated that it was not his to, from the 6th to the 16:h verse. The noble viscount
intention to enter into the general question, and he bad stated that it was very doubtful whether there was
still meant to abstain from doing so. There were any allusion in those verses to marriage at all; be. con-
some circumstances, however, with which he was tended that it rather referred to what might occur in
acquainted, to which, as they had some bearing on the private life ; and rested this view on the interpretation
question, he would for a moment advert. He was mai- of one word in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The most
reately.acquainted with the state of society in a district conclusive way of ascertaining what the word meant was
of New Eagland ;he alluded to the state of Massachus- by inquiring what was the interpretation put upon it
setts, cf which the city of Boston was the capital. He by the commentators of that church who drew up.
had several near conmxions there, and be would under- the Vulgate. Not one of them put upon it the inter-
take to say that there was not in any part of the civi• pretation contended for by the noble viscount. They
lied world a people more intelligent, more moral, and all 'put upon it the interpretation that it was the.proln-
particularly more moral as regarded the intercourse of bitiwn of marriage between those who were nearly con-
the sexes, than the people of the state to which be re- nested by the ties ( f blood or affinity. The Septuagint
ferred, and yet in that state the marriages in que tion version need a word which had always been taken in the:
-were not only legal but of constant occurrence. (Hear.) Eastern Church as meaning the mixture by marriage of
Now, he did not for a moment mean to say that a law those who, whether by blood or affinity, were in near
which produced no ill effect in one state of society might relationship. Going up to a higher authority, there was
not produce ill effects in another state of society, a state not the shadow of a doubt about the word used in the
of society with different habits and different manners. Hebrew ; and the English version was as near as pew-
He etated as a witness the fact to which he had re- tibia an exact translation of the Hebrew words—" None
fet re', and he left it to noble lords who might take part of you shell approach to any that is near of kin to him,.
in the diocussion to draw the it.f,rance from _that fact. to uncover their nakedness. lam the Lord." This being
Rethought he had not done amiss in alluding to the so, the argument remained as it had been urged by the
state of society in another country, and he felt sure that noble earl, that whether related by blood or by parallel
what ho had said on that subject would have due weight degrees of affinity, those marriages were distinctly for
with their lordships. (Hear.) bidden to the Jews by. the Old Testament. But they
Earl NELSON thought a fair interpretation of the argued this mater on far too narrow a basis, by thus,
chapter in Leviticus, which had been so often referred wrangling over particluar texts in which the law was
to, was to be arrived at solely by the simple process of laid down to the people of God of old. Could there be
analogy. Without that they would be led to the most , any reasonable doubt that the whole course of God's
absurd conclusions. Fur example, in the chapter in legislation had been to introduce new measures of
question, while there was a law against adultery and strictness, instead of relaxation, in dealing with the.
other ofleuces, there was no prohibition of a man marry- married life. (Hear, hoar.) Just as He bad in-
ing his cwn daughter. The prohibition was arrived at tended to raise a people in the male of civilisation—
by analogy, a son's marrying his mother being expressly just as He had increased to them His religious guidance
prahibited. It a mere omission were relied upon, it might and assistance—just so far had He. strengthened the'
be said that though a man might not covet his neigh- law in those things which referred to the intercourse of
honest wife, a wife might covet her neighbour's husband, the two sexes. Every one could see a reasonable round
the latter offence not being prohibited along with the for that. It was in order to promote such a state of
former. (Hear.) The example of protestant Germany society in the Cbrietian church that men and women
was rage I upon by the advocates of the bill. That exam- met with such a degree of freedom, safety and mutual
plc would carry them further, and lead to still greater affection, as could only be secured by laws which re-
relaretione. As regarded the moral ground, he denied strained sexual interccnrie beyond what it bad been.
that morality would be promoted by passing this bill, before. If, es ;n Rapt of old, %%here the detestable
because some persons were living in a state of wicked- doctrine of Isis allowed brothers and sisters to contract
nese. The bill was not in reality, as many represented marriage, this system had continued, there would have
it to be, a bill in which the lower classes were especially been an end to that freedom of intercourse between
interested. It was a bill the chief object of which was to members of the same family which prevailed in every
legitimise children, and the lower classes, having scarcely Christian land, where this most benevolent restraint of
any property, cared but little about the matter. He was the law of God bad substituted higher feelings for the
too fond of religious liberty to feel himself bound tolegis- lower animal affecti as. (Hear, hear.) When our
late by the rule of the Church, but if in a matter of this blessed Lord laid it down as a principle that man and
kind every man was to be left to his own individual wife shculd be one flesh lie solved all those difficult
opinion where were they to stop ? (Hear.) It was well questions which men might raise as to particular degrees
known that the agitation for this measure was got up of relationship. The law as it stood had always pre-
by a algae, who expended a groat deal of money te carry veiled in Christendom ; it had been held both by
theirviews into enact. Of the religious bodies the Bap- the Church in the east and the west. Let him not,
tists were the only persuasion who petitioned in any be told that the Roman Catholic Church alto ved die-
numbers in favour of the bill. The Presbyterians of pensations for those marriages. What did she not
Scotland and of Ireland, and the Roman Catholics of the allow dispensations for ? (Hear, hear.) On behalf
fatter country, were so opposed to it that they were ex• of the reformed church of England, which it was
empted from its operation. (Hear.) He hoped their his happiness and glory to belong to, he must declare
lordships would rej-wt the measure, that such were not the notions of marriage which were
Vwceunt DUNGANNON said he opposed the second held by the reformers of the Eoglish Church. It om t
reading because be believed it would destroy the social one of our great blessings that we bad been brought back
intercourse and peace of families, and introduce distrust from that system of dispensation to what had been held
where there now existed nothiug bet confidenceand affec. in primitive times as the undoubted word of the law of
tion. He did not think that these marriages were di- God. And who was the particular Roman pontiff wbo
redly prohibited in Scripture ; but fir the reason he had had introduced this change ? It was the infamous Borgia
stated, he implored their lordships not to assent to the —a man who, under vows of celibacy and sanctity, was
second reading. (Hear.) more than suspected to be living in shameless incest ;he
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY could not agree granted the se dispensations under the colourable pretext
with the noble viscount that these marriages were not of enlarging the power of the Ronaish see, which had
prohibited in Scripture. , never before claimed the power of dispensing with mar-
Viscount DUNGANNON—I said not directly pre- rages. The voice of the Ea^t^rn Citt:elt a...... the View-
hibited. . t"nn Church, and tee uubroken testimony of the early
The Archbishop of CANTERBUTtY —lt was die- church, sh3wed that this was the true interpretation of
tirctly laid down that, the brother was not to merry the the Word of God, and that it prohib ted these mix-
-o.inow of his deceased brother, and by the rule of analogy tures. Therefore it was with no hesitating voice that
the husbaod of a deceased sister ought to be prohibited he and his right reverend brethren who thought with
from marry ing her sister. On social as well as on reli- him put forward the scriptural and religious argument
glens grounds he thought they ought not to legalise that these marriages were incestuous and contrary to
Wore marriages. the law of God. Upon the social argument he would
Lord CRAN WORTH wished to state in a few words not trouble their lordships at length. The noble vie-
the grounds on which he thought this measure would be count had attributed the dislike of English females to
mischievous to the country. He looked at the question the relaxation of the constitutional jealousy of the female
abstracted from the religious view altogether,about which mind. Ile denied this imputation, and believed that
he had not sufficient confidence to express a decided it was the natural desire of a woman on her deathted
opinion. Surely one of the most important interests to that her children should be provided with a suitable
be cultivated in marriage life was that there should be protector. The real reason was thie.--=God bad given to
unlimited freedom of intercourse between the wife and the two sexes different intellec:ual advantages: to ours,
the wife's sisters. (Hear.) The husband was neces- the power of arriving at a true conclusion by reasoning;
rarity often withdrawn from home, and it was of the ut- to their's, the power of arriving at it by intuition, which
most importance to the social and domestic happiness of was always in favour of that which was purest and best .
the wife that her own sisters should be her familiar cow- It was not the least argument against this measure that
pardon'. Now, disguise it as they might, the wife could the great majority of educated women were against it.
not receive them with the same cordiality if the suspi- From inquiry in his diocese, be found that there only
cion crossed her mind that the sister might supply her three of these marriages had been contracted, and those
place if it pleased Providence to call her out of this world. not amongst the poor, with whom motives of economy
(Hear.) it had been said that LO one would make so might have prevailed, but amongst the middle class. If
good a stepmother to the children as the sister of the they once relaxed the existing marriage law they must
deceased wife. He might doubt that, but if thii bill go much further than this bill. He implored them, by
passed how was the sister to take charge of the children rejecting it, to preserve the purity of our English homes.
without creating suspicion and giving cccaeion to re- In runny cues- sisters were enabled to live with their
mark Whether he looked to the interests of society married sisters solely on the account of the impossi-
before or after the wife's death, he thought this measure bility of these alliances. He asked the house on the
would tend to impair those interests. Bet he was per- mere ground of humanity to protect these families ; for
fectly aware that what was a desirable state of the dew no unmarried woman could ever dwell as the guardian of
for the upper classes of society might be undesirable for her deceased sister's children if the law allowed of her
the lower. If that were se, what they should do was to marrying the husband. Where there was a dotibt
strike a ba'ance and see on which side the preponder- whether the blessing of the Redeemer would rest on
mice of grind and evil was to be found. But in making these marriage?, it was a part of humanity no less than
such an estimate they ought to be much on their guard of faith to refuse to sanction such unions. He acknow-
thattheydid not legislate for that date of society to which ledged that the framers of the bill had shown due con-
they themselves belonged. But he did not believe that the eideretion for the consciences of the clergy. Could he
atag,uiordrict,lndedsoy'l a
sin g
interests of the lower ranks of society were different in conscientiously have done so, he would have gladly met_
this matter from those of the upper, and that was shown them half way on this Tres. on of incest; but the law of
by the distinction made in favour of Ireland and Scotland God was paramount.
Was it meant that in the rural districts of England there Earl GRANVILLE questioned the statement of the
tura,
was an inclination to marry a wife's sister. Heappeeled rev. prelate, that incest was not a sin fag
anBtthautait did
to their lordships' experience in this matter. It these but. against positive enaoment, flow was
sitive en-
marriages were to be permitted because the law was not prevail where it was not.forbiddenhicy
hptohe house
sometimes violated, they might on the same ground !e- actment ? . This was a question.
the
eofcbtahne pe.ubinice.
galise bigamy. He had no doubt his noble and learned ought to be guided by
lower classes was de-
friend had truly described the state of morals in Massa- The opinion of the middle
aarnr:ages. He denied that
churrette, where these marriages were permitted, but he cidedly in favour of these
believed ilthey passed this bill, that they would sanction the women were generally , ,
deutractea sum marriauesgth h
wwhernebpaerfnectly well received in° th'elroolleign
a measure which would be found to be at variance with
ufoouvradilltehgoesie,
hear.) There was a case in Leeds where
the interests of this community. (Hear.)
(Hear,who kept a girls' school, which was well sup-
,had married the husband of her deceased sister
Lord WODELIOUSE said that the question had been
Flo chill had been removed from the school.
argued on two grounds—the religious and the social.
With regard to the religicus ground much less weight
on
ham,
doubt these marriages were common in populous
seemed to be given to it on that than on former ocucoaf•
laces, and even in rural districts. The Rev. Mr. Den-
slope. Ho bad no confidence in his own interpretattimot,
obscare texts of Scripture, but the obvious interpretation
f 3
ham, the rector of St. Mary's, in the Strand, stated that
of the often queted verse in Leviticus seetnerdot
..si
wif,3
he had known of many such' marriages, and they had
invariably been attended with beneficialresults. Refer-
be that the husband was not to take the.seiste.efair.l,
bit enco had bean made to the apeatolicel canon, but the
in marriage during the lifetime of the w
opponents of the measure had been driven
oar}Fook another right rev, prelate forgot that that canon forbade the
from that ground. Bet the rev. pre
ition of two marriage of priests.
ground, and raid that there was ap
and that by ana- The Bishop of RIPON' said that it was his misfortune
brothers marrying the same woman.erry .
If:(tibit 4The
the same man, to differ from many of his right rev. brethren on this
logy two sis•ers ought not to m
argument, but if these _question. There was no direct scriptural prohibition
There was plausibility in the . ~
far that was the grannd of of these marriages ; and the argument from inference
marriages were incestuous—
hat in the same book a die- was of a vercdoubtful character. II r. ebelieved that
the argument—bow came it t
twobrothere? (Eleaw) , Scripture sanctioned these
marriages ; and he should
tinct injunction wasgiven to roans
tion that God ' • tL
in that mefere support the bill. He denied that the measure
Hoc .old not consent to save .
instance commanded a positive injunction to violate his would produce the social evils that lad been anticipated.
own law for
f such a hypotheAs seemed to him to be de- Why had it not done so in the countries where this law
to-divine wisdom. On the social view of the prevailed ? There bad been only 300 petitions presented
rogator y- argued b
• every man might entertain his own view, but to the other house against the measure, y
question
1 bie view was that the law e tight to be relaxed. In Bos- 10,000 persons ; while there had been 1,047 petitions in
ton, whore these marriages were permitted, no such in• its favour, signed by 123,000 persons. He knew of one
convenient and horrible consequences as had been de- town where there had been 500 of these marriages.
scribed by the noble lord (Reclesdale) had followed from Believing that Scripture directly sanctioned these unions
the permission to marry a deceased wife's sister. In he should vote for the second reading of the bill. (Hear.)
Roman Catholic countries these marriages might take The Bishop of EXETER expressed surprise at hear-
place by dispensation, and in most Protestant countries ing this declaration from a
,bishop, and reminded him
they w ere allowed. There appeared to him to be strong that
the law of the Church of England declared Abase
.
grounds in favour of the relaxation which the bill pro- marriages to be incestuous, and forbidden by the law of
posed. It had been said that great inconvenience would God. (Hear, hear.) If any, clergyman bad made such, a
arise in the relation between the wife and her sister if the declaration from the pulpit as that of the right rev. pee•
bill passed. The ens ever to that war that the prohibition late he would at once have been called to account by a
had not got rid of the inconvenience, for it could not be faithful bishop—if he had a faithful bishop. (Hear.)
This was the law of the Church of England, because
_it
denied that there was a large number of persons in this
country who were either married to their wife's sister, had been that of early times ; the Church claimed to
or, what was still worse lived with them in a states of be the catholic church of England, purified iron!
concubinage. Fur these,reasons he thought a good case
the corruptions of Romieb times. The bill itself _a°
did.
had been wade out in favour of the second reading of the nut go so far as the declaration of the right rev. prrlet'e.
bill. (Hear.) It only legalised these marriages in a registrar's ow .*
ntained in
The Bishop of OXFORD said that having on a former but this provision was inconsistent with one con
this
bill
a subsequent clause. If a man married
occasion argued a`. length in favour of what he considered d underiss.on
,_.,
the
to be the true view of this question, he had no cccasion was to ripply to a faithful It:Mister for admission
thie '
minister
to trouble their lordships with. many remarks at the pre- Holy Communion, it would be the duty
soil
-ri neatly could
to tell him he was living
sent time. But one or two remarks made by the noble. lord
in
aofs'an'Faacrament which he had
not be admitted to partake
who had just spoken seemed to require some answer. The
learned to believe necessary to salvation.,
noble lord referred to the particular injunction in Den- NE hoped be bad misunderstood the
Lord OVERSTC!
teronomy, that a brother should marry the wife of his de-
'"f
not, he stood beftlre their lordships
right rev. prelate
ceased brother, under certain circumstances. If that are ldinot be admitted to the most holy
as a man
.who coil
gtment was worth anything, it proved too much. It
proved too much for this reason, that no one urged that it sacrament - ,e f Ex-ETBR, never said that the supporter
would be consistent with the purity of Christian life that The Bishop
to be excluded from the sacrament ; he
a man should now marry the wife of his own brother. It of the bill oughtfo
partie3 married under its provisions.
was admitted by the common sense of Christendom that referred
Only
EPSTONE said in that case h. t •
is as onish.
ord V i,
that would be intolerable. To give, a clear answer to the L
ment and regret at the light rev. prelate's remarks were
argument of the noble lord would take them upon delicate
lessened. There bad been a difference of
opinion amongst
ground, upon which he had rather not enter ; yet it wase
The the right rev. bench on this subject, and he thought it
necessary to answer the argument of the noble lord.
was the duty of the lay members of the house to cldest.
ans wer seemed to beethis, that incestuous intercourse was. i
t your to allay the feeling of asperity between them. The
not a sin against nature, but against positive enactmetnhe
right rev. prelate ulne hit ti ate ui opinion
(I t dh• • •
that theaw
It mot be remembered that by Divine appointment

w