The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-21 00:00:00

OPINIONS,

" We consider that the feeling against these marriages is in
a great measure founded rather on a vague and uninformed
assumption that they are prohibited by God's word, than on
a mature examination either of the Scriptures or the law of
the Church." " We do not find that the persons who con-
tract these marriages,-and the relations and friends who ap-
prove them, have a less strong sense than others of religious
and moral obligation, or arc marked by laxity of conduct."
" These marriages will take place when a concurrence of cir-
cumstances give rise to mutual attachment ; they are not de-
pendent on legislation."—Report of Royal Commissioners,
signed by the Bishop of Lichfield, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Dr.
Lushington, Mr. Blake, Justice Williams, and Lord Advocate
Rutherfurd.
" It seems to be established and admitted, that the moral
feeling of the community at large is not with this law—that
the law, in fact, is not obeyed, and:that a greatnumber of per
sons, not considering themselves to commit any moral offence,
do contract marriages which the law Prohibits. That is not

" Chafin, that hath married two sisters, upon his appeal
from your Grace and me, hangeth still before the delegates,
and, as much as I can perceive, is not likely to take any great
hurt at their hands. I would they would decree it were law-
ful to marry two *haters, so should the world be out of doubt,
as now it is passed away in a mockery."--Bishop Jewell, in a
letter to Archbishop Parker, dated June, 1563. From the
original in the Archiepiscopal Palace, Lambeth, (This opinion
of Bishop Jewell was given two years after the adverse
opinion so often quoted:)
"The view which he had heard taken in that House respect-
ing,* the operation of Scripture, must after all be a mere matter
of inference and construction, and, applying himself to that
view of the subject, he should say that such marriages as the
Bill was intended to legalise were not prohibited, but were
tacitly permitted by the Words of the chapter which had been
so often quoted. He protested against the opinions expressed
by those who contended 'that there existed any Divine pro-
hibition."—Biehop of St: David's.,Speecht 1851.
"The Scriptures should be the rule of Life as well as of
faith, and, as I can find' nothing- that militates against such
marriages, I feel -bound to oppose any proposition that inter-
feres with the liberty of the subject."—Rev. Sir Erasmus
Williams, Bart., M.A., Chancellor of St. David's.
"The prohibition of taking, two sisters was meant for the
lifetime only."—Milton: •
"The context also seems tp-suegest a more literal interpre-
tation, namely, the marrying of two sisters together. This
verse (Leviticus xviii. 18) seems not to contain a prohibition
of it (viz., marriage with a deceased wife's sister). Such re-
strictions as pride, covetousness, or human policy have super-
added, do not seem to have proved beneficial to mankind."
'Scott.,
" With regard to the Scriptural argument, it would ill be-
come him to give a confident, opinion upon it, when he found
the Right Rev. Prelates having considerable doubt, and no
small discrepancy among themselves."—Speech of Lord
Brougham.
"I have an amendment to move to the second clause—it is,
That there be excepted from the operation of the Bill, cases
of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife where there is
a child or children under 12 years of age.' There can be no
doubt that there are many cases in which it may be of essential
importatiee both to the-father and the children that such a
marriage should be pgrmitted."—Speech of J. P. Plumptre,
Esq., M.P., 1835.
" The amendment proposed by the honourable Member is
one of very great importance, but I fear that, at this period
of the Session, it would be impossible to bestow upon it the
consideration to which it is entitled. Perhaps the better•
course to adopt would be not to interfere- with the Bill, by,
persevering with this amendment, but to propose next Ses-
sion a short Act upon the subject to which it refers."—Speech
of Dr. Lushington; following Mr. Plumptre, 1835.
" Is the marriage of a widower with his late wife's sister
within the 'prohibited degrees ?" In all frankness and
honesty I am obliged to answer—No. It is interdicted neither
by express veto, nor yet by implication. Canonical austerity
is not to be identified with moral purity or matrimonial
fidelity."—Rev. Dr. Eadie, Professor of Biblical Literature to
the. United Presbyterian Church, Scotland.
" It appears to me, therefore, that first, as Scripture shows
that there is nothing immoral ,in such a connexion ; and se-
condly, as it is obvious that much evil would be prevented-
many poor children saved from misery and ruin by having
that person over them who, iu * majority of instances, would
be the next best substitute for a mother, my own mind is led
to believe that the law of man ought to tally in this respect
with the law of God."—Rev. Canon Champueys.
law is an abominable relic of eeclesiasticel tyranny ? Of all
" But has it never occurred to-you, my dear Wynn, that this
second marriages I have no hesitation in saying that these are
the most suitable, and likely to be.the most frequent, if the
law did not sometimes prevent them. It is quite monstrous,
judges and lawyers speaking as they have done of late, upon
this subject."—Robert Southey.
" I have never heard upon what principle of policy the law
was made prohibiting the marriage of a man with his wife's
sister, nor have I ever been able to conjecture any political in-
convenience that might have been found in such marriages, or
to conceive any moral turpitude in them."—Dr. Benjamin
Franklin.
" Having again carefully examined the question and con-
sulted some of the highest authorities in Hebrew literature as
to the meaning of the Scripture passages,. I am confirmed in
the opinion formerly expressed, that marriage with a deceased
wife's sister is not only not prohibited, either expressly or
by implication,' but that, according to Leviticus xviii., 18
(concerning the translation of which there is not the least un-
certainty); such marriage is"plainly allowed."—Rev. Alexander
M'Caul, D.D., Professor of Divinity and Hebrew Literature in
King's College, London.
" Are you of opinion that there is any prohibition in Scrip-
ture against such marriages ?"—" N o ; I am quite satisfied to
the contrary."—Evidence of Rev. J. Garbett.
" People in general do not consider such marriages impro-
per. They cannot be proved to be improper by Scripture. The
question is therefore one of expediency, and my experience as
a parochial minister induces nip to think the aeasure expe-
dient. On these grounds, it ever a- Convecatiante called, and
I be elected one of the proctors, I shall move for an alteration
in this regard in the table of kindred and affinity. Until this
be the case I shall be glad to see such marriages legalised by
the civil rite."—Dr. Hook, Dean of Chichester.
" From all I have been able to learn on the question
whether a man may marry a deceased wife's sister,' my
opinion is, that neither does Holy Scripture anywhere forbid
it, nor- ever did the Jews."—Rev. Dr. Lee, late Professor of
Hebrew in the University of Cambridge.
" Were the prohibitions founded on Scripture we ought, at
whatever sacrifice, to obey God rather than man; but I cannot
see the expediency of a law which,lhaving no such sanction, is
observed only by the scrupulous, evaded bf
the wealthy, and
defied or disregarded by the poor."—Rev. Canon Dale.
" It is not only not considered as prohibited, but it is dis-
tinctly understood to be permitted ; and on this point neither
the Divine law, nor the Rabbis, nor historical Judaism, leaves
room for the least doubt. I can only reiterate my former
vocal words, Lev. xviii.
as-
sertions that all sophistry
: -8, ' in her life time.' "—Evidence of
.
Dr. Adler, the Chief Rabbi of the Jews in England.
".This text, expressed in this manner, shows that it is not
permitted to have as wives two sisters at the same time, as
Jacob had Rachel and Leah, but only in succession ; and this
cmauhustestp. lit on the clear and unequi.
is the sense which appears the most clear and the most prob-
s."
ab,le.. positive. is not always a means of
He asked them to reflect that the parting request of many
a dying wife was that the man should aher sister, which
was the best testimony to the fel* marry
g of woman in this matter.
judging re-
specting Such marriages were not repuznia-nt to nature nor to Scrip-
ture ; and if they did but look calmlya at these facts, sure he
was that the day was not far distant when the obnoxious law
would be repealed,"—Speech of the Rev. J. C. Miller, D.D.
"Within the meaning- of Leviticus, and the constant prac-
tice of the commonwealth by tho Jews a man was prohibited
to marry hie wife's sister onlya
ss
during her life; after he
might— rso the text is. This e h D
is a knot not easily un-
tied, how the Levitical degreesi areod's law in this king-
dom, but not as they were in the commonwealth of Israel,
when first given."—Chief Justice Vaughan.
"As no clear and strong case hat been made out of impor-
tant advantage to the public from such restriction, I take my
stand on the broad general principle, that every restriction is
an evil in itself—the burden of proof g upon the advocates
of any restriction to show its necessity.' •• ' "You
are at liberty to refer to me as approving of .the abolition of
the restriction on marriage to 1 you allude."—Archbp.
Whately, Inca letter to G. A. Crowder,viei Esq.
"I speak advisedly when I say that I come here prepared to
offer my opinion, that, theologically, it is correct that such
marriages shou:d take place ; I see no etound whatsoever on
account of which such mar • maym not be legalised."—
Evidence of Rev. J. Hatcharrres -
"In the Indies—if a husband has lost his wife, he does not
fail to marry her sister ; and this is extreme y natural, for his
new consort becomes the mother of her sister's children, and
not a cruel step-mother."—Montesquieu.
" I admit that a marriage with wire's sister is not forbid-
den in Leviticus.':—Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. Kay).,
"Has never had occasion to observe, either m the mid-
dling or poorer classes, any injury or immorality arising from
such marriages ; never admonished he any of those parties
that they were acting in breach of the divine law, because
sever believed it. Tie great inducement to these marriages
is, that these parties have a better opportunity than is gene-
rally afforded of being !tequainted with each other's real cha-
racter and disposition."—Evidence of the Rev. J. F. Denham,
M.A.,
Such marriages, I apprehend, are nearly as frequent as
the circumstances which usually gave rise to them. I have
not known any social disadvan'ages attending them."—
Bishop M'llvane, United States.
"I do not know—l never heard of any social disadvantages
attending such marriages of any description whatever, and
am totally at a loss to conjecture what disadvantages' can
be referred to."—Rev. J. L. Pomroy, United States.
" As far as you know, the general moral -feeling of the
people, would not be offended by a relaxation of the law and a
permission for these marriages to be had ?"-- " I know of no
objection to it. I never ,met with a person who had an objec-
tion to it ; I never met with a person out of Parliament who
joined with the law, and took the same view which the Legis-
lature does of these marriages."—Evidence of R. Cobden,
Esq., M.P.
" In 1835 a most important statute had been passed by that
House, under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and he might
also say, of haste and want of due deliberation, materially
affecting a portion of the marriage laws of this country. In
this case the voice of Heaven was silent, and that of man
had been given with a hesitation and confusion of utter-
ance that deprived it of its due authority."—Speech of Lord
Francis Egerton (now Earl of Ellesmere), in the House of
Commons.

" That Our Established Church should select one point of
the Canon law, and establish an 'arbitrary limit without giv-
ing any power of dispensation, was, he was sorry to say, a
very great tyranny-, and one which he felt convinced that the
true principles of the Church of England didnot sanction."—
Speech of R. Monckton Milnes, Esq., M.P.
It is remarkable that while there is an express injunction'
against the marriage of a man with his brother's widow, there
is no such prohibition against his deceased wife's sister. In
verse 18 the prohibition is only against marrying the wile's
sister during the lifetime of the first wife, which of itself im-
plies the liberty to marry the sister after her death."—tiev.
Dr. Chalmers.
"Nothing is more common in almost all the States of Ame-
rica than second marriages of this sort ; and so far from being
doubtful as to their moral tendency ;they are among us
deemed the very best sort of marriages. In my whole life I
never heard the slightest suggestion against them, founded
on moral or domestic considerations."—Chief Justice Story,
United States.
"Whence, I pray you, is this rigour of man against man,
which God has not roquired ? Who has given to men this
power (of annulling or prohibiting marriage)? Be it that
they were holy men, and influenced by pious zeal : why should
another's zeal infringe my liberty ? Let any one be as zea-
lous and as holy as he will, so that he does not injure his
neighbour or rob him of his liber Let them arm themselves
ty.
with the Divine law, and say, ` What God 'lath joined to-
gether let not man put asunder.' The union of husband and
wife is of Divine right, which is binding, however contrary it
may be to human laws, and the laws of men ought to yield to
it without reserve. Forif a man leaves father and mother to
cleave to his wife, how much rather shall he trample under
foot the contemptibld and unjust laws of men, and cleave to
his wife ? And Pope, Bishop, or officer, if he dissolve any
marriage contracted in opposition to merely human law, is
Antichrist, a violator of nature, a traitor against the. Divine
majesty ; for that sentence still stands : What God hath
joined, let no man. put asunder.'—Perish, therefore, those
urged traditions of men, which have been brought in only to
cursed
dangers, offences, and miseries in the Church."—
Luther.
“His first duty was to ascertain whether there was any-
thing in the Word of God which forbids the marrying of
ui srteedr
earnestly
h ls deceased
tu come wi
at the
thief et
rluotohk,eaducda care;
fully, that there was nothing; in the Scrip-
was perfectlyhich prohibited that act."—Speech of R, Spooner,
tures w
opinion of the law has long been that it is an impolitic
My
restriction."—Archdeacon of Derby,
" I believe such marriages as you wish to make lawful are
twuildlys:wheer
ewiu'dthe
aav
es
already lawful, according to thy fetter and spirit of Holy

"You are understood to state that you are of opinion that,
, so far as the interpretation of Scripture goes, either in the
Mosaic or Christian dispensation, there is nothing repugnant
to those marriages ?"—" There. is nothing repugnant in my
opinion."—Evidence of Rev. R. C. Jenkins. -
"The petition was probably entrusted to me inconsequence
of my having declared_without hesitation that the marriage
of a sister of a deceased wife was not. prohibited by the Levi-
tical Law."—The late Bishop of Llandaff.
"I shall only add, that all persons who voted for the Act of
Parliament which legalised such marriages of that descrip-
tion as had taken place, nay, all who had an opportunity of
opposing that Act, and did not oppose it, must be regarded as
subscribing to the declaration that those marriages were not
in opposition to the Word of God."—The late Bishop of
Meath.
• " Without pursuing
,the sub, ect further, I shall give it as
my opinion that the marriage ba question is not against either
nature or the law of .God.'.'--Rev. T. Binney.
"My opinion is certainly in favour of the relaxation of the
law prohibiting the-marriage of a widower to his late wife's
sister."—The Chancellor of the Diocese of Exeter.
" Seeing' that it was not against the law-of God—seeing the
great social evils which afose froin' the- restriction; and be-
lieving that there was no comparison between the social ad-
vantag,es and the social disadvantages arising from this cause,
he should give the measufe his cheerful assent."—Speech of
the Duke of Norfolk.

"The ffncient Roman 'aw permitted the marriage of two
sisters in succession."—Aeineccius.

Are marriages of this description considered in' Germany
to be at all contra bonos mores ?" " Not at all. So far from
their being considered contra bonos nfores, the feeling of the
people of Germany is undoubtedly in favour of such mar-
riages." "It frequently bappens that a .widower marries
his decased wife's sister out of a pious and affectionate feel-
ing for his departed wife.. And the feelings of the women of
Germany are so strong in favour of such marriages, that it often
occurs that the last parting request by a wife on her death-
bed to her husband is, to marry her sister in case he should
feel inclined to marry again. This arises partly from affec-
tion for her surviving husband or relations, that he may not
become estranged from her connexions, and partly from affec-
tion to her sister, and very frequently, where there are young
children, for their 5ake."...." Are you aware of any evil con-
sequences from,the celebration of marriages of this descrip-
tion ?"—"None whatever. I have spoken with several' fmy
friends, and I have written to some others, asking them
whether they are aware that this power of dispensation is the
cause of any immorality in families, and their answer is, none
whatever. I am not at all aware of any."—Evidence of A.
Bach, Esq.
" Though a man might not marry two sisters together, it
seems a natural conclusion, from the phrase in her lifetime;'
that he might marry the sister of his deCeased wife—and thus
we learn from Selden, the Jews in general understood it"—
Dr. Dodd.

" The very strongest reasons for engaging in a second mar-
riage contract is, frequently, to provide a suitable female head
for a family ofshall children. In such cases, who is so likely to
exercise the requisite maternal care and affection as the, sister
of the deceased mother? To prohibit a marriage under such
circumstances seems to me inhuman."—llon, Judge Mason,
United States.

"If the founders of our Church have incautiously adopted
a canon prohibiting that which of its own mere authority it
had no right to prohibit, and which Scripture does not war-
rant it in prohibiting, now that the evil has become apparent,
it is surely time for that Church to rescind such canon, and to
cease opposition to the repeal of any secular law founded upon
it."—Speech of Viscount Gage.
" Having to deal with persons of other communions, who
did not recognize the same ecclesiastical law, with the Roman
Catholics, who by dispensation tolerate such marriages—there
being also Protestant churches in Europe, and Protestant
denominations in this country, who recognized the validity,
ecclesiastically speaking' of such marriages. . . . It was
impossible not to feel that the civil law which declared the
illegality of such marriages, and bastardized the children, im-
posed a 'heavy penalty on persons who, by contracting these
marriages, did not contravene the tenets of their religieus
persuasion." . . "Socially speaking, if a case was made
out that morality would be endangered by, the Bill; that
would be a reason for rejecting it; but he had not heard it
established that such danger could arise. Marriage being a
civil rite, they were bound to make that civil rite co-extensive
with the feelings of the country. He had, therefore, come to
the conclusion that it was his duty to support the second read-
ing of the Bill."—Speech of Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, M.P.
" Doubtless it was very gratifying to our national pride to
be told that a higher standard of morals prevailed in this
country than could be found elsewhere ; but surely it could
not be denied that the rules of chastity were as strictly ob-
served in the North of Germany, Switzerland, and the United
States of Anierica, as they were in England. He was'entitled
to say that the evils anticipatbd from permitting these mad-riages here had not manifested themselves in those countries,
for, if they had, the law which authorised them would not
have been suffered to continue for 12 months."—Speech of
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.
" He had before stated his belief, that if the matter came
to be investigated befdre the Courts, it would turn out that
the marriage contemplated in this Bill was in Scotland a
lawful marriage ; and he had good reason for saying that that
was the opinion of an hon. Baronet;-than whom no person
ever stood higher in the Church of,Scotland—Sir H. Mon-
crieff. For himself; having dome' to the deliberate opinion
that the marriage in question was not forbidden by the law
of Leviticus, he came also to the opinion that the connection
was not a crime, and that the marriage was effectual for l
oses. "—Speech of the Lord Advocate of Scotland (Ruther-
liorm.
" I have known probably several scores of such marriages.
I have counted a dozen within the last three or four minutes.
Most of these dozen belong to the highest class of society.
One of them is a doctor of divinity. Several of them are
ministers of the Gospel. One is a member of Congress. Am-
brose Spencer, the eminent Chief Justice of this State, died a
few years ago. He married two sisters of Dewitt Clinton, the
distinguished Governor of this State. The Presbyterian
Church of this village has probably not more than 50 members.
Two of these married sisters of their wives."—Gerrit Smith,
Esq., United States.
" I express my conviction that Scripture says not one word
against marriage with a deceased wifq's sister. Surely it is
not a crime, and, if it be not, the law tlfat constitutes so must
be, for the worst of all crimes is an evil and unjust law."—
Rev. Geo. Gilfillan, Dundee.
" The prohibition of such marriages is, in my judgment,
sanctioned neither by Scripture, nor by physiology, nor by
expediency."—Rev. H. Renton, Kelso, Scotland.
" He declared, most conscientiously, he could find no prohi-
bition of this marriage in. the Holy Scriptures."—Speelh of
the Right Hon. Stuart Wortley, M.P., Recorder of Londtn.
" If this marriage be lawful in the sight of God, then I go
upon the broad ground that, in such a ease, no man has a right
to impose a restriction on his fellow-man which God has not
imposed ; that the doing so can only bring a snare upon the
conscience, and be the occasion of sin ,• and that no sanction
of human law can be expected ultimately to succeed in enforc-
ing what a man feels is no transgression of the law of God."
. . . . " That it is lawful, according to the Word of God,
I consider incontrovertibly proved by the passage in Levi-
ticus, of which I feel sure I have established the only correct
translation."—Rev. C.. 7. Goodhart, M.A.
" After all the consideration he had been able to give the
question, his conclusion was, that in no sense could the mar-
riages proposed to be sanctioned by this bill be said to be op-
posed by Scripture."—Speech of T. E. Headlam, Esq., M.P.
" The petition from the city of London, iu favour of thi s
marriage, was signed by a large number of persons, and among
others by the Lord Mayor, the Governor and Deputy-Gover-
nor of the Bank of England, and a considerable number of the
Directors of that establishment, by 59 private bankers, by the
Chamberlain of the city of London, by 237 merchants, 146
solicitors, 124 barristers, and 61 physicians. It was his good
fortune to be acquainted with a large number.of the persons
who signed this petition, and he could say from hi 4 knowledge
of their characters, that their opinions were entitled to the
greatest weight and attention."—Speech of Lord Overstone.
"That the enactments of the Levitical law aro entirely mis-
interpreted when applied in condemnation of marriage with
a deceased's wife's sister was the decided judgment of Mr.
Wesley, the founder of our Societies ; and I believe that
similar views have since been entertained by many of those
among us who have been led by circumstances carefully to
examine the matter, and whose competency to judge of such a
question has given great weight to their conclusion,"—Rev.
Dr. Bunting,
" He had given his best attention to the arguments adduced
to show that there was a divin,e prohibition against these
marriages, but he was satisfied in his own mind that no such
prohibition existed. . . . Then came the question as to
the effects of this measure upon society, and he thought that
the great preponderance cf arguments, and facts upon which
arguments were grounded, were in favour of the alteration of
this law."—Speech of Sir George Grey.
' "He was sineerely favourable to the object of the Marriages
Bill."—Speech of the Earl of Ellenborough.
" I shall endeavour to show that the marriages it is sought
to legalize are not forbidden by the Word of God ,• that they
are not contr iry to the law of nature ; and that they are not
inconsistent with the interests of society. I am happy to be
able to inform the house that Lord Denman is desirous of
supporting this Bill."—Speech of Earl St. Germans.
"I believe all restrictions upon the nuptial union, unless
founded upon the law of nature, or the express authority of
Scripture, unwise and unjust; in neither of which sources
have I found this interdict of marriage with the sister of a
deceased wife,"—John Quincy Adams, late President of the
United States.
" Everything that T have read upon this subject, for the last
20 years, has satisfied me that the objection is utterly un-
scriptural and unfounded." _Justice Story, 3lassa •husetts.
"As far as I can judge, I do not believe one syllable of the
unlawfulness of this marriage under the Christian dispensa-
tion." Chancellor Kent, New York.
" There is no law forbidding such marriages in the state of
Massachusetts; and, other things being equal, they are re-
garded with favour. I have never heard of any disadvantages
attending, or supposed to attend them ; and I make this re-
mark in reference to apprehensions which, as I perceive from
the public discussions, prevail in England."—lion. Edward
Everett, late American Ambassador to Great Britain.
" Such marriages, in Brazil, are as frequent as they can be.
They inspire no repugnance, but, on the contrary, are con-
sidered extremely advantageous where there are children of
the former marriage ; for it is always to be presumed that the
aunt, who already knows the children of her brother-in-law,
and is connected by the ties of relationship, willprove a better
mother to them than a stepmother, who is an entire stranger
to them can possibly be."—His Excellency the Brazilian Am-
bassador,
" I have perused, with much pleasure, your letters on the
marriage of a man with the sister of a deceased wife, which
not only confirm me in the opinion which I had long enter-
tained, but must, methinks, satisfy every candid mind, that
there is not even a pretence for the assertion that such a con-
nexion
onis prohibited by the law of God."—Judge Livingston,
t States.
"'There was no prohibition of the wife's sister, except
during the lifetime of the wife."—Rev. Professor Robinson,
New York, Author of " Researches in Palestine," &c.
" From the fact that the prohibition of marriage with the
sister of a wife is restricted to the lifetime of the wife, it is
evident that under this prohibition is notcomprehended mar-
riage with the sister of a deceased wife, the limitation, in
her lifetime, leaving the marriage free after her death."—
Cardinal Cajetan.

moses, in Leviticus, prohibited certain marriages and per-
mitted °therein the same degree. For he prohibited marriage
with the wife of a brother even afterhis death, and did not
prohibit marriage with the sister of a wife, unless in her life-
time ; and, consequently did not prohibit it with, a sister of a
deceased wife,"—Cardinal Bellarmine.
" Do you construe that passage in Leviticus (xviii,, 18) as
prohibiting marriage with a deceased wife's sister, or merely
as saying that a man should not take two wives together, at
the same time being so related ?"—" Certainly, that verse
appears to have thelatter meaning, that two sisters should
not be Hiring together in the same house as wives of the same
person." . " Is such a marriage held by your Church as

"It is my decided conviction, after careful investigation
and consideration, that there is no direct scriptural' prohibi-
tion declaring such marriages unlawful. I do not stop to con-
sider how the repeal of the present law may affect the inter-
course between a husband and his wife's sister. This is not
a mattes for legislation. I could not support the law as it
now stands."—Bishop of Manchester. •
"Whether the question is considered in a religious, moral,
or social point of view, such marriages are unobjectionable,
while in many instances they contribute to the happiness of
the parties, and to the welfare of motherless-children, and
among the poor,'have a•tendency to prevent fmniorality."—
Petition signed by the Bishop of London (Dr. Tait), 1849.
"There is even among the opponents of this Bill (the Mar-
riage Bill) a wide diversity of opinion as to there being a
Divine command prohibiting these marriages, and that the
weight of authority is against the existence of any such Divine
injunction. If among, the richer classes there is a dislike
upon social grounds to a change in the law, that' dislike rests
upon sentimental rather than on substantial grounds ; whereas
among the poorer classes it cannot be denied that the law
causes great immorality and unhappiness.",--Speech of ,Lord
Wodehouse, March 22, 1859. _ _

" The passage (Lev., xviii., 18) requires no aid from a canon.
It is so clear, and so distinct, as to leave no doubt on my
mind respecting the Divine permission to contract these mar-
riages." I shall vote for this Bill, because I consider it cal-
culated to prevent a vast degree of immorality among the
poor ; and because I hold the prohibition of such marriages to
be a flagrant violation of the rights of conscience."—Speech of

the Earl of Albemarle.
" We who support this Bill do not think that the marriage
of a deceased wife's sister is opposed to the law of God, and
we do think that it is as wrong to restrict that which God
permits as to g,fant dispensation for that which God forbids."
—Speech of Viscount Lifibrd.
"These marriages are not contrary to the Divine command.
The scriptural argument against them seems to me to break
down at every step. In proportion as, by our prohibitions,
we multiply the opportunities of temptation, and prevent the
enjoyment of any seeming advantages, not evil in itself, in
the same proportion we extend and increase the power of. the
enemy of mankind."—Speech of Bishop of Cork.
" He'had never Tiserefrom an examination of the religious
arguments but with a firm conviction that these marriages
were sanctioned by the Word of God. As to the social
grounds, he could not conceive any reason for which the law
should prohibit those very marriages which seemed most
likely to secure the happiness of the deceased wife's child-
ren."—Speech of Edward Ball, Esq.,' ALP. '
"He thought that those who disapproved these marriages
should be content to obey their own consciences themselves,
but that they had no ground for enforcing on others scruples
which were not really based on the Word of God."—Speech of
Charles Buxton, Esq., M.P.
" He did not think the measure proposed was any infringe-
ment on scriptural precepts or commands. It was a remark-
able fact that from the time when the scriptural law was given
to the present day, so far as could be ascertained. the Jewish
people themselves had never interpreted that law as a law of
prohibition. Referring to marriage with a brother's widow,
the bishop said it was inconceivable that on a subject of mo-
ral purity and moral principle, the author of a scriptural law
should inone.nlace permit that which in another, place was
prohibited. He felt bound to say that he did not perceive in
the Scriptures any direct prohibition, or any inferentigl pro-
hibition against such marriages."—Speech of ex-Bishop of
Norwich.

"So far as the poor are concerned, I believe that an -altera-
tion of the present law is much to be desired.l'-,Lord Auck-
lmd, Bishop of Bath and Wells.
"Public opinion, which feels no scruple of any kind as to
such marriages,. approves of them most particularly when
there are young children of a first marriage, as giving them
in the sister of their late mother a second loving mother. The
permission of such marriages has, with us, been productive in
no w iy of evil consequences.''—Consistorl Court of the Grand
Duehy of Mecklenburg•-Strelitz.

"The arguments attempted to be drawn from Scripture by
the opponents of the measure were arguments by inference ;
and, considering the conflict of op in ion among eminent divines
of this and other Christian communities, and that, at best,
arguments by inferenco were of a very doubtful character, he
thought they might very well leave the resolution of the doubt
to the conscience of each individual. But, believing, as he
did, that Scripture, so far from prohibiting, sanctioned these
marriages, it was a, grievance of which the people might justly
complain, that the law of the land was out of harmony with
the revealed will of God."—Speech of the Bishop of Ripon.
"My Lords, the vote-which I shall give in support of the
Bill before your Lordships' House, will, I think, be in accord-
ance with, and not in opposition to. the Levitical Law. I
acknowledge that law to be binding. I hold as strongly as
any one a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures, but in
saying that, "I mean that there is not a word too much nor a
word too little. Believing, then, that every word has its own
important meaning, I would remark that the verse in Leviti-
cus, which has been so often alluded to, contains these words,
during her lifetime.' My impression is that these are quali-
fying words • that they imply a prohibition to take a wife's
sister as a Wife, during the wife's lifetime to vex her—but
that the wife being dead, the prohibition was removed —that
the marrying a wife's sister on the death of the wife is taus
virtually pronounced to be perfectly lawful."—Speech of the
Bishop of Carlisle.

SELF-CURE—AMERICAN TREATMENT.
TO THE NERVOUS AND DEBILITATED.
-I. —Given away by an F.R.A.S., Member of the Re-
tormed Medical College, U.S. ; the Society of Medicine,
Rouen ; the National Academy of Sciences, Paris • also Fel-
low and Honorary Vice-President of the Imperial African
Institute of France, " THE GUIDE TO SELF-CURE."
"Those about entering the Marriage State should peruse
the Author's invaluable little work, as the advice he gives on
health and disease reflects much credit upon him as a sound
medical philosopher."—Critic.
" The true Guide to those who desire a speedy and private
cure."—University Magazine.
" The NEW AMERICAN DISCOVERY' demonstrates
the absurdity of the English mode of treating such com-
plaints, will prove a blessing to the afflicted, who may safely
and easily regain pristine health by adopting the means pre-
sented."—Evening Sun.
Enclose six stamps, and address W. Hill. Esq., M.A.,
No. 27, Alfred-place, Bedford-square, London, W.C.

ONE HUNDRED POUNDS REWARD ON
CONV ICTIN.
The fearful dangers to invalids froOm spurious imitations of
DU BARRY's invaluable HEALTH-RESTORING REVA
LENTA ARABICA FOOD led to an investigation, and,
upon application in 1854 for protection, the High Court of
Chancery granted an injunction restraining Alfred Hooper
Nevill, and his agents, under a penalty of £5,000, from selling
any article resembling or being a colourable imitation of Du
Barry's Revalenta Arabica, of which we are the sole pro-
prietors. Now, therefore this is to give notice that the above
reward will be paid, upon conviction, to anyone giving infor-
mation of any breach of the injunction. An intelligent
public requires no admonition to shun all shopkeepers who
may attempt impositions. London : BARRY DU BARRY.
& CO,
NO MORE SICKLY OR ILL-CONDITIONED HORSES
OR OTHER CATTLE.
RAREY'S HORSE and CATTLE IMPROVING FOOD
restores the efficiency, vigour, endurance, and muscle of ill-
onditioned or apparently, worn-out Horses, Cows, Bul-
ocks, Calves, Sheep, and Pigs. In a short time it improves
heir appearance and value by 20 and 30 per cent. BARRY
and Co., 77, Regent's Quadrant, London. In tins at 35., at Os.,
at 11s. ; in casks, of about 450 feeds, 50s. ; of about 1,000 feeds,
£5, being about lid. per feed.
Forwarded on receipt of Post-office orders. The casks free
of carriage.

NO MORE MEDICINE
Price 2d., free by post, a popular treatise, sixty-four Pages,
THE NATURAL REGENERATION of the DIGESTIVE
OGANS,
practically illustrating the R
effectual Cure, without Medicine,
of Indigestion (dyspepsia), habitual Constipation, Flatulency
Acidity, Palpitation of the Heart Torpidity of the Liver,
bilous Headaches, Nervousness, Biliousness, General Debi-
ity, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, Despondency, Spleen, &c.,
without Pills, Purgatives, or Medicine of any kind, by a
simple, pleasant, and infallible means; adapted to the general
reader. London : Barry Du Barry & Co., 77. Regent-street.

ON DISQUALIFICATIONS AND IMPEDIMENTS TO

MARRIAGE.
New Edition, enlarged to 199 pages, illustrated by 100 Ana-
tomical Engravings on Steel, just published, free; by post,
on receipt of two penny stamps direct from No. 19, Berners-
street, Oxford-street, London,: 'm
THE SILENT FRIEND ; a Medical Work, on indulgence,
and the injurious consequences from the use of Mercury 1
with observations on the obligations of marriage, and direc-
tions for obviating certain disqualifications ; and containing
a valuable prescription of a Lotion to prevent Infection.
THE GREATEST MEDICAL DISCOVERY
OF THE AGE.

--
A NEW, MILD, AND MOST SUCCESSFUL MODE
OF TREATMENT.
The Proprietors of PERRY'S justly celebrated Patent Me.
epriilseeras-aestreet,
2bl,9eail3rnd from 5 till 8
dicines have confided their Prescriptions to a Physician of the
Royal University of Erlangen, and Member of the Royal Col-
lege of Surgeons of England (who is registered under the
Aectlwanteode
between
the attends
advise
hourss
iat dallyioefi 1
11
it
aeNonod.t
Oxford-street, fciltliTe
ESSENCE. OF
Treatment, and thus add to the speedy certainty of Curse
(Sundays excepted)
and
tasteless, retang its curative powers..
PERRY'S PATENT CONCENTRATED
COPAIBA and CUBEB SACCHARATED GLOBULES,
Preparation of the essence of the Balsam of c a
clsrefsecotflYGonorrhcea, Gleet, Stricture, &c., a single
opaiba and
CtruiTabnleNbaviiBill prove the efficacy of this invaluable remedy ; as it at
restoring. them to
once acts upon the Urino-Genitmal.
_organs,
their healthy state. Price 2s.
stree7LPoonstdo3ns.. 3d.),
48.
Bd.
(by
(by post 135.), sent direct from
post ss. Bd.), and lls. per box
No. 19, Berners-street, Oxford-
SYboRIACUM, a remedy for
The CORDIAL BALM of'
powers
satoorrf
ihicere,a,vvibsenemopxloby:doasntions,tetthhseesxeespetrao
erne: owvahtoe theare
reinvigorates the frame in
all cases of sexual debility,
prevented entering the married state it is Invaluable. Price
4s. Od. and lls. per bottle, or four quantities in one for 335.,
CulEsN;Toßr AinTWasDesE4TERSPirE ESSENCE, for
syphillis in all its stages,
whichT
be saves
Co N
symptoms, blotches on the ahnedadisanreed Tomo, eenodiedargfoomr sort nofdatbryo
throat, tonsils, and uvula ; its beneficial influence on the
system is undeniable. Price 4s. Bd., lls. and 335. per :bottle,
also a saving of lls
,
dbiio. to HEALTH DEPEND
FERRY'S S UPON PURE BLOOD.
0 PURIFYING SPECIFIC PILLS a cure for all
seases of the skin, such as scurvy, scroftila, ulcers, bolts,
tesabadnudi pipmerplbeosx.on the face and body. Price 28. 9ci.,
IsTo be had dir•ect iron/No. 19, Berners-street, Oxford-street
140nd0U, upon receipt Of rOstolllce Order.

Lainant to be the Catherine Daley that saw on
Ile 13th of January. The prisoner came tome on
Ale day previous to arrange about the transfer of
£l3O in the Three per Cent. Consols, and the fol-
lowing- day-• it was effected, by prisoner. and h',l
sister.
Complainant—That is quite true. I was there, •
and my
,brother gave me £124, which he received
from the stockbroker.
Mr. Bingham—l-had seen the prisoner several
times before, • but not his sister. - About a week
after he came again to arrange the transfer of the .
remainder of the. stock standing in their joint
names, and on the. Allowing day, the 20th of
January; the prisoner;and to the best of my belief,
for it is now six mouths ago, his sister, who is now
present, came, and the- transfer was made. I met
them at the Bank of England. I was in_ the trans-
fer offiq, and th-e prisoner brought in 'his sister.
He signed the stock receipt, and she put her cross
to it. I gave him a cash cheque on Prescott's for
the amount. To the best of my belief the com-
plainant was the woman with the prisoner.
Alderman Phillips—What do you say to this
gentleman's evidence ?
Complainant—I never was in the Bank after I.
received the £124 until I went there to make in-_
quiries about the transfer of the balance about a
week ago.
Mr. Martin, the. chief clerk—Did your ,brother
speak to you about -selling out the. balance of the
stock ?

Complainant—No, sir ; for about that time he
left me to go and live with a woman of the name
of Margaret Donovan.
Mr. Martin—How did you firfa out that the
stock had been transferred ?

Complainant—l was told so by several persons,,
and among the number by a man named Coneon-
niss, and a young woman of the name of Catherine
HenesSy. They told me so two or three months ago,
but I could not believe them.
Mr. Phillips—Did you not know that Henessy
had been to the Bank about this matter ?
Complainant—No, sir. Margaret Donovan was
the woman who personated me. She lives with my
brother. lam confident she is the person, 'as she
had a black eye at that time, for the gentleman at
the Bank told me so.

Alderman Phillips--Did you not go to the Bank
with her lately ?
Complainant—Certainly, sir ; for I gave her into
custody, and, she was taken there instead of going
before a magistrate. She has helped my brother to
spend my money, and she says she will never leave'
him until she has had all I have left. I have £2O in
St. Margaret's Bank, and an uncle of mine has £3O
besides of mine.

Alderman Phillips—Where did you get that
money ?

Complainant-1t was all I had left of the £124. I
have no monerelsewhere.
Mr. Martin—Have you had any quarrel M ith
your brother lately P
Complainant—No, sir; but I gave him into cus-
tody a week ago for stealing £2 from my room, and
he was remanded at Clerkenwell for a week and
then discharged.
Mr. Martin—Then the magistrate did not be-
lieve you, and therefore discharged your brother ?
Complaivant—l told the magistrate about the
transfer at the Bank, and he said that was a more
serious affair, and told me to go to the Bank and in-
quire about it. Ever since my brother has known
Margaret Donovan he has treated me very badly,
b$ he has not beaten me lately.
Mr. Martin—Oh, then he has beaten you. Did
he ever give you a black eye ?
Complainant—No, sir.
Alderman ,Phillips—How did you get that cut
on your nose ?

complainant—That is where Julia Donovan
struck me, and she stabbed me also in the breast.
She is the cousin of Margaret Donovan, the woman
who went with my brother and got my money.
. Mr. Martin—Did you have a black eye then ?
Complainant—l did, sir ; I had two black eyes.
Mr. Martin—How long ago was that ?
Complainant—About a month or six weeks ago.
Mr. Martin—Are you sure it was not six months
ago ?

Complainant—I am sure of it, and the doctor
who dressed my wounds can prove it. The magi-
strate could not punish them for it, because I could
not swear which of the Donovans stabbed me.
Mr. Martin—Had you never a black eye before ?
Complainant—I might have had one 12 or 18
months ago.
Mr. Martin—Will you swear that you had.not
black eye in January last ?
Complainant—Certainly, I do swear I had not,
and I can bring plenty of witnesses to prove it. I
can also produce witnesses to prove that Margaret
Donovan had a black eye at -that time, for she
showed it to me, and said my brother had done it.
Prisoner—Did you not, on the 13th of January,
stop outside the office because you had a very bad
black eye ' • and did you not have the remains of
that black eye when you went there on the 20th
of the same month ?

Complainant—No • for I was not there on the
iyst ebraachdc ao
20th at all; and I will ask Mr. Bingham if I had a
black eye when he saw me on the 13th.
Mr. Bingham—You had no black eye on the 13th
NfovofirtSitlainiaeun
blacka
accident.
ye
e. i d
eeOnynte. the
yse
statingh2 She had
atdht
that
two
prisonertoh ivse
sr
du:lin:el
eyes at that time. and her face was scratched and
swollen.
Mr. Gregory, a clerk in the Transfer-office at the
Bank of England, said—l was one of the attesting
witnesses to the transfer, on the
of stock then standing in th 2oth of January,
and William Daley. The female who attended
to make the transfer had a very bad black eye. I had
an impression, on seeing the complainant, that I had
seen her before, but_ I was more struck with her
attitude than her
swollen and di fifeatures, as they were very much
s man,
at the time. The pri-
soner is the same
man, and to the best of my recol-
lection the c
did not take complainant is the same woman, but I
e particular notice of her.
Complainant W ld ou you like to see Margaret
Donovan ?
Witness—l certainly should, in order that I •ht
between her and
see what difference there is b migh
t
see
Mr. Arnold (the other attesting
witness)
said—l
am certain I have seen complainant fbe ore and my
opinion is that it was at the Bank of England.
Alr.Freshfield, after consulting with the alderman
and Mr. Martin, here said—As far as the Bank was
concerned, he felt it his duty to place before the
Court all the information in their possession rela-
tive to these transactions, and he was bound. to state
that if a case had been made out which would have
called for a prosecution, the Bank would undoubtedly
have taken it up ; but, in the present instanei 3, there
was not only no prima facie case but the 'balance
of testimony was against the complainant, NI -ho was
evidently a woman of strong feelings, and. he should
therefore advise the directors that it was not a case in
which a jury would convict, there being 110 •rrounds
for the prisoner's apprehension, and cert. tinily none
for a prosecution.
Alderman Phillips said he was glad to It Ewe the
benefit of Mr. Freshfield's opinion, as it streni ;thened
his own. He had given a very patient an, d atten-
tive consideration to the whole case, and ha d come
to the conclusion that he must discharge •
f he pri-
soner.

The complainant, who had remained remarkably
calm throughout the inquiry, on hearing th e deci-
sion gave way to a violent fit of crying, rep e atedly
asking how she was to get her money, and d ;E:nying
in the most energetc manner that she had et, ter con-
sented in any way to the second transrer.

ROYAL PRINCESS'S THEATRE.
Under the Management of Mr. Charles Kean.
THIS EVENING, DYING FOR LOVE.
After which, will be revived SS irk
Tragedy of
BENRY VIII. Cardinal Wolsey, Mr. Chas. Kean ; Queen
Katharine, Mrs. C. Kean.
To conclude with IF THE CAP FIfS.
Commence at 7.

THEATRE-ROYAL, HAYMARKET.
Lessee, Mr. J. B. Buckstone.
THIS EVENING the performances will commence with
THE BALANCE OF COMFORT.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION.
Followed by HOW TO MAKE HOME HAPPY.
To conclude with HALLOWE'EN.

a stone's-throw of the hero's town residence.
A monstrous effigy, as of a mounted policeman
in an ordinary oilskin cape, and an extra-ordinary
cocked hat of the old school, points ceremoniously
with a baton at all things in general, or at nothing

in particular, and for no apparent earthly purpose
whatever, up in the clouds, on the top of the
triumphal arch at Hyde Park-corner. Further
away eastwards, in the heart of the City, in front
of the Exchange--(why such a site for such a sight
was ever selected no one can up to this moment
even conjecture)—there is another effigy of his
Grace on horseback, placed there incongruously
enough (as Punch, if we remember rightly, re-
marked at the time) like an old farm wife—looking

up the Poultry! Posthumously a sic sidebat statue of
Fame (all knee and elbow) comes out later on at the
bidding of Signor MAROCHETTI to mourn over the
garden railings of Apsley House for the departed
warrior—bent apparently, by the selection of that
particular locality as the scene of her silent lamen-
tations, upon distracting her gloom, if possible, by
having a full view of all the gaieties of Rotten-
row during the height of the London season. It
were simply preposterous to argue in exte-
nuation of all these sculpturesque extravagancies
in honour of the Duke of WELLINGTON, that
they really do confer honour either upon the
memory of that great man, or reflect credit upon
the taste of his contemporaries. Latterly another,
perhaps the strangest of all kinds of posthumous
evidences of respect for departed worth yet thought
of, has come into vogue a token of honour,
the possible risk which that all wise SHAKSPERE
of ours beheld some three centuries ago by a sort of
prophetic prevision ! One that he himself so re-
coiled from that he deprecated the mere notion of
it in regard to his own tomb, solemnly guarding
that tomb through his epitaph by a sort of hypo-
thetical malediction—
" Good Friend, for JESUS' sake forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here ;
Blessed be the man that spares these stones,
And curst be he that moves my bones I"
Yet latterly—such has been our homage for the
memory of JOHN HUNTER, the great surgeon, and
of General PICTON, who fell gloriously at Waterloo,
that we have been industriously digging up their
dust and carting the poor ashes off, here to West-
minster Abbey, there to St. Paul's Cathedral.
Far better would it be if instead of wasting
our time and frittering away our hero-worshipping
enthusiasm over these unholy ceremonials—we were
caring for the impoverished descendants of other
great public and national benefactors. There is a
remarkable case in point just brought under gene-
ral notice very forcifully by one of the most
eminent scientific men of our time—WILLIAM
FAIRBAIRN, of Manchester. That munificent
and distinguished citizen has just now prof-
ferred £lOO, as the nucleus for a pecu-
niary testimonial to be raised as he proposes
with all convenient haste—to what end ? To
relieve henceforth from absolute want the three
surviving children out of the thirteen children of
the late HENRY CORT—one son and two daughters.
the united ages of whom amount to two hun-
dred years ! HENRY CORT having been the
veritable discoverer of the arts of puddling,
piling, welding, faggoting, and rolling iron—
processes which have, at a moderate calculation,
enriched this country by some £600,000,000 ster-
ling, besides giving employment in round numbers
to some 600,000 of the working population ! Here,
surely, was a great public, a great national, bene-
factor. And what is more in HENRY CoßT's re-
gard at this moment—it should be borne in
mind while his three last surviving children, his
now venerable son and two daughters are
left by an ungrateful country in actual poverty,
that, besides the genius and ingenuity of 'HENRY
CORT (their father) as an inventor—his magnani-
mous expenditure in the furtherance of those bene-
ficent inventions of his, was very remarkable.
£20,000 he is said to have lavished him-
self in the costly labour of perfecting
them. Yet robbed of everything he pos-
sessed by a swindling partner—" a red-tape official
in a high department of Government"—HENßY
CORT bequeaths a penniless family to his country,
and to his country inventions giving, as we have
already said, labour to 600,000 souls, and wealth
reaching at last the hardly conceivable aggregate
—(nearly the amount of the National Debt)—that
stupendous total of £600,000,000 ! The daughters
and the son of HENRY COAT have a distinct claim
upon the British people and the British Govern-
ment.

The greatest SHAKSPERIAN actor yet left upon
the stage—the greatest histrionic revivalist of our
time—the gifted son of an illustrious sire—

CHARLES KEAN, tragedian, manager, artist,
archaeologist, received last night some portion at
least of the weed of praise and thanks due to him
in each and all of those five remarkable characters
from the hands of his contemporaries. His Grace
the Colonial Minister was in the chair
upon the occasion of that noble banquet
in St. James's Hall, which was selected for the
presentation to Mr. KEAN of this eminently deserved
testimonial. And the Duke of NEWCASTLE ap-
propriately acted thus as Chairman having—now
some thirty years and more gone by—once upon a
time pulled at the oar, handled the cricket-bat,
thumbed the dilectus and the dictionary, side by
side with CHARLES KEAN, as brother Etonians.
We have very great pleasure in directing attention
to the record of last night's proceed-
ings, as given at some length in ano-
ther part of this evening's impression of our
journal. These proceedings will long, we hope; be
borne in happy remembrance by the gifted pair they
were designed to honour—CHARLES and ELLEN
KEAN—a brilliant episode in two brilliant careers,
the crown of their kindred and enviable and
honourable reputations.

Whatever may be the general effect of the local
penny papers, they have had one good result, in
bringing into public view many local evils that
otherwise would have remained unregarded, or
dormant, except for mischief. "De minimis non
curat lex ;" and great London journals rarely
notice the grievances of country places, how-
ever important to the parties concerned, or even
when they may contain in themselves some prin-
ciple that must evidently extend to other commu-

nities.
For the knowledge of two such evils—for they
can scarcely, from their nature, be confined to one
place only—we are indebted to the acute and active
minded editor of the Chatham News. It seems
that that military town, or possibly only martial
" manor," is entirely dependent upon its clerical
neighbour, the city of Rochester, for its law, and
upon the county for its police. If an embryo hero,
in the form of a recruit, arrives at Chatham on his
road to glory, he must be taken to Rochester to be
attested. If, disappointed in his hopes of a martial
career, some military aspirant should return to
civil life, and be eventually brought back to
Chatham as (we must say it) a deserter, he must
equally be taken to the metropolitan black coats
before the red coats can deal with him. When the
Chathamists quarrel among themselves they have
_ to carry their disputes and the costs of them to the