The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-16 00:00:00

THURSDAY

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED

WIFE' S SISTER.

MEETING IN FINSBURY LAST NIGHT.

Yesterday evening a public meeting of the Non-
conformists of London and its neighbourhood was
held in Finsbury Chapel, with the view of declaring
the sentiments of that body on the Bill now in pro-
gress through the House of Commons for legalizing
marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
At half-past six o'clock S. M. Peto, Esq., IMP.,
was called to the chair, by which time the floor and
galleries of the chapel were occupied by a very large
audience, which increased as the proceedings pro-
gressed until there could not be less than 500 persons

Rev.
t
present. g
On the platform were anumberofin
t nhods,o ministers
e
v
aamndonggewnthleommewn
we noticed thetedw ha the
J. DissentingH
J. Big wood, Rev. F. Trestrail, Rev. W. Reynolds,
Rev. W. Leask, Rev. J. Hatch, Rev. E. Clerk, Rev.
T. Binney, and Rev. J. Burnet ; J. Scoble, Dq., G
Lowe, Esq., F.R S., Mr. Oliver, Mr. J. Haddon, J.
.11H1 arr. riJ 8., Esq.,So Soul, Pr." Chew,‘V. Griffin,
Esq
C. M
lWilliams,
Parnell, and J. Danford, Esq.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the meeting said, the
necessity and propriety of Nonconformists calling a
meeting of this kind would be fully shown by the
fact that he himself had_had the honour, during the
present session of Parliament, of presenting petitions
representing the opinions of 1,200 congregations of
Nonconformists in favour of the Bill of Mr. Stuart
Wortley for legalizing marriage with a deceased
wife's sister.—(Cheers.) lie submitted that in inter-
fering with so great and sacred an institution as that
of marriage they ought to have the indisputable
sanction of the Word of God, or be urged to that
showc ess i t
tbyhy. a t
Lord
the
cehr wed o
Jn
altera-
tion d
n db
al
t marriage
n e
t hoeu rbs
made
saibdnyee s some onomf
tethhei greatsl
aw s
meetingo
of e
burst's Act, in 1835, was not justified by public ne-
cessity, or sanctioned by the Word of God.—
(Cheers.) When that Bill was first introduced its
purpose was to limit the period within which objec-
tions might be taken to these marriages, and when
the Bill was in Committee, to meet the views of the
Bishop of London and the other dignitaries of the
Church in the Upper House of Parliament, the Bill
was altered altogether, and it was then reported as a
Bill to sanction all such marriages of this kind as had
previously taken place, and to prohibit all such
marriages in future.— (Hear, hear.) The ob-
ject of Lord L 3 ndhurst's Act was only to
sanction certain marriages which had taken place
among Members of the Upper House and their rela-
tives, and had no reference whatever to the general
well-being of the people.—(Cheers.) Great dissatis-
faction began soon to be felt throughout the country
with that Act of Parliament, and her Majesty ap-
pointed a Commission to inquire fully into the ques-
tion ; and that Commission unanimously reported to
Parliament in favour of an alteration of the existing
law. He thought the religious aspect of this question
had been fairly given up. The Jewish Rabbis, and
almost all the learned men amongst the Jews, who
were best competent to form an opinion on this sub-
ject, had contended that the text of Scripture appli-
cable to those marriages gave a sanction to them; and
those learned persons put a different construction
upon that text from that which the supporters ot
Lord Lyndhurst's Bill did. The Jewish people, so
far from holding those marriages in detestation or
abhorrence, conceived they were entitled to their
warm commendation ; and they were universally per-
mitted to take place earlier after the decease of the
wife than any other marriage by a widower. That
no essential grievance existed to justify the passing of
Lord Lyndhurst's Act was shown by the fact that
not a single petition was presented to the House of
Commons in favour of it before the passing of the
measure ; and whilst that measure was passing through
that House its warmest advocates could only say that
those marriages were contrary to the canon law of
the Church of England; and that was the only
objection they had to offer.—(Hear, hear.)
It now became a question whether the Noncon-
formists of England would submit to that law.—
(Cheers.) The Nonconformists were not in the
slightest degree amenable to the canon law of the
Church of England ; that canon law had been
altered from time to time. The ancient canons of
the Church of England, for instance, forbade third
marriages altogether; and second marriages, although
not forbidden, were as far as possible discouraged.
With reference to clergymen, second marriages were
prohibited, and a clergyman was prohibited altogether
from marrying a widow. The greater part of those
canons were not the law at the present day, but
had been altogether repealed. Were they, in the
nineteenth century, with the Word of God for their
rule and guide, to submit to the canons of the Church
of England ? No.—(Cheers.) And they were deter-
mined that the Act of 1835 should not much longer
remain the law of the land. They held it to be the
duty of the Legislature not to interfere unduly with
the freedom ot action, and they thought in this re-
spect the Legislature had unduly interfered with the
liberty of action. And what had been the result ?
Why, the happiness of thousands had been destroyed.
Since Lord Lyndburst's Act was passed upwards of
33,000 of those particular marriages had taken
place, which the law of this country did not recog-
nise.—(Hear, hear.) Besides that, the whole of the
children of those marriages were illegitimate, and a
man who had contracted such a marriage could not
recognise his wife or his children in his will without
their having to pay 101. per cent. duty on their lega-
cies after his death, as if they had been perfect stran-
gers to him. lie contended that Lord Lyndhurst's
Act had never been found to work well, and if it was
not justified by the law of God or the law of nature,
then it was unjust to interfere with the civil and reli-
gious liberty of the subject, and the Nonconformists
were determined to persevere in their exertions until
that unjust and cruel law should be repealed.
The Rev. JonN HOWARD HINTON, in moving the
first resolution, reviewed the various changes which
had been made in the law, especially in the time of
Henry the Eighth and Queen Mary. The fact of
such marriages being forbidden by the 99th canon of
the Church of England might be a circumstance
binding upon the members of that church, but what
had those out of that church to do with it ?—(Hear,
hear.) It was a question never yet discussed in the
present day, who were and who were not prohibited
by God's law to marry. It was true that Arch-
bishop Parker's list had been the rule in courts of
law, and had been the guide in decisions, but to
no greater extent had the matter been decided.
He contended that the 18th verse of the 18th chapter
of' Leviticus sanctioned, by implication, marriage
with a deceased's wife's sister. The verse ran as
follows :—" Neither shalt thou take a wife to her
sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside
the other in her lifetime." The insertion of the
words " in her lifetime" clearly implied that after
the death of the wife the restriction was not to be
enforced, and the law was so understood by the Jews.
To allow the present unjust and cruel prohibition to
continue would, in fact, be to retrace their steps
beyond the reign of Henry the Eighth, for all persons
were then allowed to marry who were not prohibited
by the law of God, and to return again to that period
of ascetic churchmanship and monastic spirit, when
the people had wrested from them the larger portion
of their liberties. If he might be permitted to give a
word of command and encouragement, he would
say to his hearers, as did Wellington, on a memo-
rable occasion, " Up, Guards, and at 'em," with a
confident hope that they would boldly, zealously,
and successfully fight the battle of truth and justice.
—(Cheers.) He concluded by moving the following
resolution :
" That, in the opinion of this meeting, marriage with
the sister of a deceased wife is not contrary to the law
of God; and that its being forbidden by the 99th canon
of the Church of England forms no valid reason for its
Leg
being prohibited by the Imperial treason
to the
population of the United Kingdom, te large proportion of
which is not comprehended within the pale of the
Church established by law.
Mr. N. GRIFFIN, one of the Dissenting deputies,
seconded the resolution.
Mr. J. MITCHELL said he was desirous of address-
ing a Christian meeting. in a Christian house of
worship, against the most iniquitous and unjust Act
of Lord Lyndhurst, passed in 1835. Ho was enabled
to corroborate the statement which had been made,
that, according to the Levitical law, a man could
marry the sister of his deceased wife, and he knew of
a number of members of the Jewish Church who had
contracted such marriages, and he did not know of a
single instance in which they had proved unhappy.
The resolution was then unanimously agreed tee
The Rev. THOMAS BINNET rose to move the second
resolution—
" That, in the opinion of this meeting, the Act of sth
and 6th William IV., commonly called Lord Lynd-
hurst's Act, by which marriage with a deceased's wife's
sister is declared ' absolutely null and void to all intents
and purposes whatsoever,' was, and i., an unwarranted
interference with social rights; tbat it has wrought, and
must continue to work, injuriously to the happiness and
morals of the community; and that the thanks of the
public at large, and especially of British Nonconformists,
are due to the Right Hun. Stuart Wortley, M.P,, for
having in successive sessions of Parliament, and in the
face of a tenacious and unscrupulous opposition,
endea-
voured to obtain the removal of this unrighteous and
pernicious restriction."
He thought it was very proper to introduce the
words " commonly called Lord Lyndhuret'e Act,"
into the resolution. It was commonly called his Act,
but it was not Lord Lyndhurst's Act, as they had
already heard. Lord Lyndhurst had a particular
object in view ; his Act would have been an improve-
ment on the previous state of the law, but the Bishop
of London introduced what completely altered the
character of the Act. Lord Lyndhurst proposed that
the marriages that had taken place should not be
I questioned after six months, and that the marriages
that should take place should not be questioned atter