The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-26 00:00:00

Arguments on the merits of the question is now
useless. They are well known. Leviticus (falsely
interpreted) and the Church canons, on one side;
Leviticus (rightly interpreted), or Leviticus re-
jected, as a law, by those who understand that con-

sistency would require them to be circumcised and
keep the whole of Leviticus, with the canons of
Christian and natural liberty, on the other side.
This is how the argument now really stands. All
the nonsense about the position of a wife's sister
in her sister's dwelling deservzs no notice. It was
invented purely to bolster up the canon. It was
never dreamed of when asceticism framed that
very canon. It was all an after-thought, a very
modern one too. We heard nothing of it till
about the year 1835. The old canon is the root
of all tho mischief. Not a soul in England—
not even a Bishop's soul—would have imagined
anything wrong in these marriages—from Scrip-
ture or from reason—had not the ages of ascetic

invention sent down this precious canon amongst
loads of other ecclesiastical lumber. But precious,
indeed, in the eyes of Bishops and BERESFORD
HOPE, is all such lumber; and when the irreve-
rent common sense of the country orders it
to be cast off—they strew over it the flowers of
modern sentimentalism, and beg us not to touch it
--that is all.

There is one point—with us the chief one—
which has yet received by no means adequate con-
sideration—we mean the religious persecution in-
volved in the present law. That law is but four-

iteen years old, be it remembered. Such marriages,
before that time, were voidable, but the religious
feeling of the country, common though they were,
never allowed them to be made void. In 1835 the
late pragmatical Bishop of LONDON got the prohi-
bition inserted into an act by which Lord LYND-
HURST intended to remove even their liability to be
made void ! To Bishop BLOMFIELD and the other

Bishops belongs the honour of having_„, ma 3•

say fraudulently, in regard to the general and un,

observant public—obtained the enactment of this

restriction on religious liberty. That it is such, the
Bishop of MANCHESTER showed admirably but the

other day ; and he ought to have come boldly for-

ward and stated the same in the House of Lords.

But the conclusive proof that it is so is this : The

majority of worshippers in England are Dissenters.

All the great bodies of Dissenters hold the mar-

riages to be lawful. Their deputies presented, only
last Monday, a petition, following many others
they have sent, expressing their feeling of the re-

ligious tyranny involved in the prohibition. Great
numbers of Churchmen, as well as Dissenters,

advanced Liberal could require or demand. Why,
then, should the second reading be rejected ? Why
should the subject of Reform be shelved for the
present year, merely to bring the RusEellites, Pal-
merstonians, and Peelites into office ? Mr. WHITE-
SIDE, in alluding to the extraordinary coalition,
pertinently asked—
" When shall we three meet again ?"

They may meet for a short period, but it re-
quires no extraordinary power of vaticination to
predict that it would not be for a protracted period.
And what would be the opinions of "Brummagem
JOHN ?" Surely he could not long continue to
support one whom he has long designated as "
firebrand," "a disturber of the peace of Europe,"
" a promoter of strife and disturbance." lie has
himself promulgated a measure containing many
admirable points, but there is not a single one of
his suggestions which could not be carried in com-
mittee ; and with a large Liberal majority, and
holding a balancing power in his own hands, he
could probably achieve .far greater results than
could be accomplished eitherby a change of Minis-
try or an appeal to the country. However, the
old and time-honoured proverb, -De gustibus non
est disputandion,"indicates that we must not quarrel
with the peculiar tastes displayed by honourable
gentlemen. We know not what may be the nature
of the compact—whether the honourable gentleman,
doffing broad brim and drab garments, may hope
to appear as
"Secretary for War," or may be con-
tented with the more congenial atmosphere of the
Board of Trade, and satisfy his conscience by enter-
ing a mild protest against any belligerent pro-
ceedings.

The arguments are all on the side of the Govern-
ment. But passion and prejudice are all-power-
ful. Men who have ample means, and are in the
enjoyment of every comfort and luxury of life
will still vote on party principles, and violate
their own doctrines. How sternly would they
denounce the offence of the poor man who acted in
a similar manner when deciding at Quarter Ses-
sions. They can, however, forget the " beams" in
their own eyes when looking at the " motes" which
obstruct the vision of their humble brethren.

In his eloquent speech on Tuesday evening Sir
E. B. LYTTON declared—" The brain and the heart
of England are still in the House of Commons ; the
wisest of our own people have still an interest in
our debates." Had the occasion required it, he
might surely have added, and the bigotry of Eng-
land in the House •of Lords, and the most priest-
ridden of the people have still an interest in its
debates. It certainly is not the fault of the Peers
(in their collective capacity, for there are gratify-
ing exceptions) if the country do not, however,
grow weary of this leaden weight on their energies.
Bigotry is tolerable enough when it confines itself
to cathedrals and their precincts, and to a dozen or
two of decent old peers, whose names are never
heard of except when antiquated church canons
and annoying church-rates are in danger; but if we
are destined to be checkmated session after session
by these intolerants emerging from their lurking
places to veto the decisions of the "brains and
heart" of England, we must beg to inform their
lordships that Mr. BRIGHT'S diatribes against them
will be as feathers compared with the contempt and
hostility awakened by their own recorded votes.
There is the Marriage Bill rejected again by
these worthies on Tuesday night. Now we would
seriously ask their Lordships—how do they sup-
pose "the brains and heart" of England look upon
that act ? The number of persons directly inte-
rested, as in the case of the Jews, may be compara-
tively small, they may be snubbed without danger
of a mob being collected .in Palace Yard, or the
Guards enjoying amongst their "privileges," that
of putting down the Marriage Bill rioter; that,
however, is just what, in the view of the people,
makes the conduct of their Lordships so much the
more contemptible. They have surrendered vastly
greater things when Englishmen, and when Irish-
men too, have become almost unmanageable ; but
Jews, and a small class of widowers, could not
shake their nerves ; towards them, therefore, they
could, with impunity, indulge their High Church
intolerance, and they have done it. Every thing
has been tried in order to propitiate the theological
and ecclesiastical prejudices of Peers Spiritual, and
thus to gain, through them, the Peers Temporal,
who pride themselves on being train-bearers to
" the Episcopate "-:—the marriages were, by this
bill, made civil marriages, no priest was compelled
to officiate,—but nothing could avail; their be-
loved canons would then not be compulsory on
those who disbelieve them, and Dissenters of al
classes still would not bear the yoke of the cano
nical Church.