The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-11 00:00:00

b(enina

,-*

LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1850.

At length in the sixth month of the session, the
Marriage Bill has received a third reading in the
House of Commons. All the old arguments, that
have already been repeated usque ad nauseam, were
again brought forward, and a futeher attempt was
made to throw out this just and salutary measure
in the last stage of its progress. But the effort
failed—signally and decisively failed. Although
the advocates of the Bill did not exhibit the same
zeal and energy displayed by their opponents, there
was happily a sufficient attendance to defeat the
bigots who desired to control the consciences of their
fellow-subjects, and to deprive them of the most sacred
and dearest privilege belonging to freemen. The Hon.
Member for Midhurst led the van on the present
occasion. He repeated the hackneyed and stereo-
typed objections, and again plue ged the House into
the maze of polemical discussion. We had hoped
that what has been termed " the religious part of the
question " 'had been abandoned by general consent,
that we should hive heard no more respecting a
matter so perfectly plain, that it is difficult to E 011•
ceive how any person of ordinary common sense
could have entertained a rational doubt on the sub-
ject. • Mr. WALPOLE has, however, discovered a new
reading of the' translation—that the word OiXELOc,
in the Greek traaslatioß, meant not merely kin-
dred or relation., but " members of the same
household or family." And on this novel version
—the translation of a translation—he mainly relied.
But if this argument be worth anything, if the
slightest weight is to be attached thereto, it must
artrely be carried a great deal farther, and to an ex-
tent never yet contended for. Ic must apply to
every person who ever dwelt under the same roof as
companion, friend, housekeeper, governess, or in any
other capacity whatsoever, although not in any
degree connected by blood or affinity. The weakness
of the cause may be judged of from the fact, thet a
man of education and abilily, who has risen to emi-
nence in his profession, should have descended to an
argument so puerile and ridiculous. The Hon. and
Gallant Colonel, the Member for Bradford, completely '
dispelled the mystification attempted to be thrown
over this part cf the subject by showing the true in-
tent and meaning of the passage, that " for the sake
of peace the polygamic laws prohibited a man from
having, two sisters as his wives in his house at. once."
But Mr. WALPOLE, conscious of the slende r foun-
dation on which he rested his case, endeavoured to
-show that the prohibitionists should receive the
" benefit of the doubt." This might be a very reason-
able suggestion if the Bill were for the pnreatee of en-
forcing such marriages, and compelling a reluctant
widower to marry the eldest surviving sister of his
former wife under a heavy penatty—just as a childleis
widow might, under the Mosaic law, have required the
brother of her former husband to receive her as a wife.
But such ie not the C 332. There is to be
no compulsion of any kind. No person who feels the -
slightest scruple can be called upon to act contrary
to his own judgment. The only point in dispute is
whether persons who entertain no doubt or difficulty
whatsoever, who feel that the temporal and eternal
welfare of th. nselves and families will be best pro-