The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,' WEDNESD4Y EVENING, MARCH 23, 1859.

MP E RIAL PARL.

lAMENT.

Closing I Business
Paid. Price. Done.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY).
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five .'clock.
The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from Sheffield
in favour of legalizing the marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, ; and also a petition from Westminster in favour of
Parliamentary Reform,
The Earl of CARLISLII presented several petitions
from Barnsley, Leeds, Liverpool, and other places, praying
that Protestant dissenters might be allowed to administer
trusts of grammar schools.
Earl GRANVILLE presented a petition- in favour of
legalising the marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
Lord CQLVILLE, of Culress presented a petition from
Taunton against such a proposition.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented similar petitions
from Ipswich, signed by the mayor, the en-mayor, alder-
men, town councillors, bankers, and other influential per-
sons.

Lord REDESDALE presented petitions from Leeds and
other places against the Marriage Law Amendment Bill,
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition against the bill.

THIRD READING.
The Great Northern and Western of Irelav ‘'
R'ailway
bill was read a third time and passed.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMF:sT BILL.
Lord WODEHOUSE, after preser::mg a great number
of petitions in favour of legalism • ;
ceased wife's sister, propOr g the marriage with a de-
bill. He said their lot:1M.;
i,
1)s
wertehe
no doubt
the object of the btu was to legalise marriage with
a deceased wife's sister. The subject had been
so frequently brought before the house that he
did not intend to make any lengthened observations
in doing so. The noble lord having alluded to the different
efforts that had been made to pass a bill with the above
object for the last twenty years, went on to say that last
Year a bill passed the other 'house by a large ma-
jority, but was thrown out by their lordships. The
objections to the bill might be divided into two classes,
religious and social, and when the movement was first com-
menced, opposition was justified on theological grounds ;
but that had in a great measure been abandoned. The
well-known chapter in Leviticus, which was origi-
holly considered to be a conclusive argument against
the bill, was now looked upon as conveying an
approval of the principles of the bill. The chief Rabbi of
the Jews, Dr. Adler, had construed the chapter in Leviticus
favourable to this bill, but notwithstanding this circum-
stance it might be said they ought to be governed more by
the opinion of the heads of our own Church than by that of
the Jewish. The Bishop of London, who, he regretted, he did
not see in his plaoo,was in favour:of the bill. The Archbishop
of Dublin had expressed himself that the marriage in ques-
tion was not in opposition to the Word of God, and the
Bishop of Manchester had distinctly and explicitly
expressed a similar opinion. It was quite true that
many members of the episcopal bench had expressecra -con •
trary opinion, but he could not believe they could now look
upon the marriage with a deceased wife's sister as incestuous
if they had formerly thought it was not inconsistent with
the Word of God. Last year only seven of the right rev.
prelates had voted against the bill, so he thought the objec-
tion from the episcopal bench could not now be very strong.
The noble lord then quoted the opinions of several eminent
clergymen of the English Church, all of which were strongly
in favour of the marriage with a deceased wife's sister. In
nearly all other countries these marriages, as their
lordships knew, were permitted. In Roman Catholic
countries they were permitted by dispensations. He had
no doubt in the course of the discussion many points would
arise to which he should have an opportunity of reply, but
he thought the divided opinion that prevailed amongst
parties ought to induce their lordships to think whether
the time had now arrived when they could
safely read this bill a second time. (Hear.) It
was an admitted fact that an immense number
of those marriages now took place, and that in many cases,
though the law prevented a marriage, it forced parties to
live together illegally. He would not detain their lordships
with hearing arguments that had so frequently been urged ;
but he trusted that the bill would on this occasion share
a better fate than its predecessors. He concluded by moving
that the bill be now read a second time.

Viscount DUNGANN ON moved that the bill be
read a second time this day six months. It was his
deliberate opinion that marriages with a deceased wife's
sister were decidedly opposed to Scripture. The noble lord
denied that there was a feeling prevalent amongst the
middle and lower classes in favour of those marriages; in-
deed, he was of opinion that precisely the opposite was
the fact. The • effect of this measure, if
agreed to, would be to render desolate many
of the homes of England. He believed that in the
higher and educated classes not one woman in fifty was in
favour of the provisions of the bill. He did not think that
because the House of Commons had frequently approved
the proposals of the bill that that was any reason for agree-
ing to this measure.
The Bishop of EXETER said his words must be few,
for he was conscious of the infirmities of age. It had been
observed that six or seven bishops had held these marriages
to be lawful. He thought it would be difficult to double
the number amongst all the thousands of bishops of the
church of Christ since its foundation. He (the Bishop of
Exeter) opposed it on religious grounds. ,
Lord ST. LEONARDS wished to draw attention to the
state of the matter as it stood before the house. The ques-
tion was not whether it was against the law of God for a
man to marry his wife's sister, but whether, as the law of
the land forbade it, the house was prepared to revoke the
existing law, and allow a man to marry his wife's sister,
whatever might be the law of God on the subject. In 1835
everybody admitted the force of the canon law forbidding
these marriages, but according to the law these marriages
were voidable, and not null and void, and persons took ad-
vantage of that circumstance to contract such marriages.
But the act of 1835 laid it down that parties had been in-
duced to contract these marriages knowing that they were
only voidable—and it made all past marriages good, estab-
lished the legitimacy of children, and the right to peerages
and estates; but it contained a provision that every future
marriage of this kind should be null and void. The noble
and learned lord concluded by pointing out the great social
oltpration This bill would, causes in families, and the incon-
veniences and jealouses which would flow from their being
acknowledged.
The Bishop of ST. ASAPH opposed this change in the
law on the ground that it would be contrary to the law of
God, which no human power could alter; and if the law of
this country on this subject were altered to-morrow, the law
of God would be against these marriages still.
Viscount LIFFORD was understood to say that when
he last voted against this change in the law, he did so on
the ground that these marriages were forbidden by the
Church, and by that he meant the Church of Rome, of
which the Church of England was a branch. On a more
attentive consideration and examination of the 'matter, he
had come to the conclusion that the objection to these mar-
riages was invented in the dark ages of the Church, in order
that dispensations for the purposes of gain might be
granted.
Lord CRANWORTH remarked that his opinion upon
the question remained unchanged. That opinion was
founded upon the social not upon the religious ground, for
upon the religious ground there was so much difference
of opinion amongst those who were authorities on the sub-
ject, that he thought it unadvisable to proceed upon that.
It was for the sake of the women of England that he op-
posed the bill, believing that it would be impossible for a
wife to receive her sister under her roof on the same terms
of intimacy with her husband as she could now, were the
existing law repealed.
The Bishop of CORK supported the bill on the ground
that such marriages as it referred to were not contrary to
God's law.

The Bishop of OXFORD, who rose amid cries of " di-
vide," said smco this matter was before their lordships last
ho had gone through it carefully, and the result of that
examination was that he was strengthened in the conic.
tion that these marriages were prohibited by the law of God.
The Bishop of CARLISLE thought no sufficient case
had been made out to show that marriage with a deceased
wife's sister was contrary to the law of God, and having
seen much of the evils' of the present state of the law, he
had come to the conclusion that it was his duty to vote for
the second reading of the bill.

WODEHoUSE replied, urging that it was not
justifiable to put restrictions on the liberties of those whose
motives were not less conscientious than those of the oppo-
nents of the bill.

The house then divided, and the numbers were :
Contents
Non•eontents
The bill was therefore lost.

. 49-10

The Court of Chancery Accommodation Bill was read a
second time.

The Consolidated Fund Bills were read a second time ; the
County Courts Bill went through committee ; the report on
the Convicts Prisons Abroad Bill was received ; the Eccle-
siastical Courts (Ireland) Bill was read a second time—
all without discussion.

Their lordships then adjourned at 20 minutes before
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
MUNICIPAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS. _

Colonel FORESTER brought up the reply of the Crown
to the address on the subject of the municipal laws and cus-
toms, to the effect that her Majesty had ordered an in-
viry to be instituted in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the commissioners.

to be held to deliberate on the affairs of Italy with refer-
ence to the preservation of the peace ofEurope, and whether
he was able to state to the house what Powers would be the
parties to the Congress; and especially -whether Sardinia
would join in it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Government had come to no decision on the subject.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
Mr. J. LOCRE moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the act of the fifth and sixth years of King William
the Fourth, relating to weights and measures.—Agyeed to.