The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-17 00:00:00

that feeling which the law as it at present stood tended
to create, they would in a measure encourage those illicit
connexions, and this sentence of this court would be no
security against such offences.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. MAULE then rose to move a proviso to pre-
vent this Bill extending to Scotland. His original inten-
tion was to put this proviso exactly in the same words as-
it stood in the Act of 1835, from the operation of which
Act Scotland was entirely exempt. He could not un-
derstand upon what grounds a country, which was not
only opposed to such marriages as were here considered,
but in which those marriages were not even stated to
exist, should be included in this Bill—and why a law
was to be forced on Scotland, against which the
whole people were repugnant, was to him a complete
mystery. He trusted that the House, especially those
Hon. Members who professed great regard for the opi-
nions of the people of Scotland, would not stand calmly
by and see these opinions entirely set at nought. In
the Committees that were appointed to inquire into this
subject there was not a single clergyman of the Presby-
terian denomination in Scotland found to give evidence
in favour of the measure who had the smallest weight
with the body of the people. The only Presbyterian
clergyman examined was ono from Dublin, who stated
that these marriages did not exist in Ireland. Meetings
had been held in Scotland to oppose the Bill, particularly
a very large one in Edinburgh, which was intruded
upon by a paid agent of the supporters of this
Bill. The fact of this person not being permitted
to move a resolution in favour of the measure,
did not make that meeting one whit less public.
There was a committee formed against the Bill, and that
committee was composed of ministers of the Church of
Scotland and ministers of other persuasions, and in that
committee there were ♦arious other persons. This
showed a public feeling had existed against the Bill. He
might also refer to the petition presented by him that
day, and signed by 6,800 of the most respectable females
of Edinburgh, who declared that they regarded the Bill
as one calculated to destroy the whole fabric of society.
In Glasgow there had been a meeting against
the Bill; a petition had been presented from
Glasgow in favour of the Bill, but it was a petition
that did not emanate from a public meeting. It
was a petition got up by the same paid agent who had
endeavoured to disturb the public meeting at Edinburgh,
and who sought to get up one at Glasgow, and failed.
Such a measure was opposed to the feeling of Scotland,
and it was contrary to the Confession of Faith which
was so conformable to the feelings of the Presbyte-
rians, who, whatever divisions existed amongst them,
always adhered to that Confession of Faith. By it they
found it declared that no man might marry a nearer
connexion of his wife than he could of his own. Now
he distinctly denied that he had ever given up the re-
ligious objections to this measure. The marriage law
of Scotland might be objected to. It was a law which
enabled a man, on his death-bed, to legitimatise the
children of his concubine. It was a law that led to the
destruction of female virtue, and he had done his best
to rescind it. If the law were extended to Scotland it
would be but additional means for enabling the people
to stray from the paths of virtue; and, God knew, they
were bad enough already. Let them keep temptation
out of the way of the.people, and then they would not
be accountable for their sins. He would have been
glad if the Bill had been thrown off the table; and if he
could not destroy the Bill as a general measure, yet he
entreated them not to enforce it upon a nation that re->
pudiated it. If they did so, they would gain a victory
that would be little creditable to the combined Parlia-
ment, and it would inflict a great misery upon the people.
Mr. OSWALD seconded with great pleasure the
proviso of the Right Hon. Member, as it embodied the
feeling of nearly the whole of the people of Scotland.
That feeling, too, was exhibited by 255 petition!, signed
by 14,000 persons; whilst in favour of it there was but
one petition, with one signature. He left, then, the
House to infer from that fact the feeling of the people
of Scotland upon the subject.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY admitted, that if he took a
course that would be most agreeable to his own feelings,
it would be at once to assent to the course proposed by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. He was bound to admit
that the measure was repugnant to the feelings of the
people'of Scotland, and that a very large portion of his
own constituents had expressed their disapprobation,
and had even remonstrated with him upon it. He was,
however, influenced by the opinions of those he was
bound to respect, induced to say that it would be unwise
to make any exception. He would lose his ow❑
esteem, and that of his constituents, if he was to
yield against his own judgment.—(Hear, hear.) He
felt bound to carry out the principle to which he stood
pledged, and he would not shrink from his duty.
(Hear, hear.) It had been said that no minister of Scot-
land had been examined before the Committee. The
Lord Advocate and himself wore members of that
Committee, and they were enabled to state that the
people of Scotland were opposed to the marriage of a
wife's sister. He confessed he was astonished at the
difference of opinion among the Scotch people on the
subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman said there had
been a public meeting in Edinburgh against the Bill;
but the Lord Provost had ordered the police to remove
the advocates of the measure. This produced a reaction,
and a public meeting was held next day in reality in sup•
port of it, which was largely attended. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Edinburgh had presented a petition from 6,800
inhabitants in its favour also; and Linlithgow met and
petitioned in its favour likewise. In the county of Ayr
there was a very great division of opinion also on the
subject. What was the reason for extending the Bill to
Scotland? It had been truly stated that the law of mar-
riage in Scotland was different from that of England; it
was a difference to be depilated; but the Bill would in
some sort amend it. If the Bill was not applied to Scot-
land it would aggravate the difference that existed be-
tween the marriage law of the two countries. He
believed, however, that the aversion to the description of
marriage in question was so great in Scotland that few
persons contracted them; but then many parties from
England crossed the border to have them celebrated in
that country. In the Confession of Faith drawn up by
John Knox there was not a word of this prohibition;
while in a contemporaneous statute only those
marriages were specified which were contrary
to the Word of God. When the Confession
of Faith of Westminster was adopted by Scot-
land, a statue was passed is 1645 setting forth the
prohibited degrees; but that was repealed at the Resto-
ration, and never re-enacted. He held in his hand the
opinion of the procurator of the Scotch Church in Scot-
land, in favour of the principle of the Bill; and the
Lord Chief Justice Clerk was also of the same opinion.
These were the grounds on which he applied the Bill to
Scotland. By its provisions the law of the Church of
Scotland was left intact, the confessions of faith and dis-
cipline of that Church were untouched, and would stand
as binding if the Bill passed as they did at present. Any
injury to the religious people of Scotland was therefore
out of the question; and he (Mr. J. S. Wortley) would
sooner cut his right hand off than do any violence to their
feelings in that or any other matter.
Mr. COWAN would give the measure the most
strenuous opposition in his power. The 18th chapter
of Leviticus clearly established, to his mind, that
these marriages were contrary to the Word of
God. What was addressed to the man was ad-
dressed to the woman in the 16th verse; and in
the 17th verse, that view was borne out on the
ground of affinity. The social results of the Bill would
be most dangerous and disastrous to the morality of
Scotland; and lie could not comprehend the policy of
excluding the wife's niece and including her sister—ex-
cept on the principle of straining at a gnat and swallow-
ing a camel. He felt perfectly convinced that the mind
of Scotland was unanimous against these marriages.
lie (Mr. Cowan) had seen in one of the morning news-
papers a report of the speech of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, that the Confession of Faith of Scotland was the
offspring of fanaticism. This he (Mr. Cowan) denied,
and, on the contrary, looked upon it as one of the most
splendid monuments of Scottish piety left to the
people by men of whom the world was not worthy.—
(Hear, hear.) He considered it would be wrong to
press the question against the feeling of the women of
this country.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY denied having designated the
Confession of Faith as the offspring of fanaticism and
rebellion; he only meant it was adopted ins time of re-
bellion when fanaticism prevailed; on the contrary, he
believed it to be a noble monument of the piety of Scot-
land.
Sir F. THESIGER called attention to an advertise-
ment'in the Times newspaper, signed " A Lover of Con-
sistency," referring to an article in the Law Review,
said to be written by Sergeant Manning, stating that in
Scotland a bastard could marry his halt sister, or even
his whole sister. If this was the case then the Scotch,
in respect to the Bill, were straining at a goat and swal-
lowing a camel—aye, and even a dromedary, too. He
wished to know of the Learned Lord Advocate whether
there was any ground for this assertion of Sergeant
Manning that the law of Scotland was in such a state,
and if the fact was not that, in respect to marriage, ale.
gitimate relations stood on the same footing as legiti-
mate relations?
The LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said that the
Honoarable and Learned Gentleman could not be so
little read in the law of his own country, or in that of
Scotland, as not to know that this had always been a
question of difficulty to determine. With respect to the
criminal law of Scotland, he believed there were one or
two instances in which the marriage of illegitimate re-
lations had been visited with punishment in the courts
of law. But nobody would now pretend to say that
the crime of incest could be charged against a per-
son who was alleged to have committed it with a
woman with whom he had only a bastard relation-
ship. And Sir W. Moncrieff was of opinion that such
a marriage was lawful, according to his construction
of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, and according to
the law of Scotland. As to exempting Scotland from
the Bill, if the measure was passed for one country,
as a matter of necessity it ought to pass for the other ;
and it appeared to him utterly indefensible to say that
they should think it good for one country and not for
the other.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the people of Scotland were al

most unanimously opposed to the alteration, and Par-
liament was asked to alter the law merely to save those
who had broken the law. If the Bill should come into
operation, its effect would be to sow dissensions, jea-
lousies, and hatreds in families.
Mr. COCKBURN said that, according to the autho-
rity of the Secretary at War, marriage with a deceased
wife's sister was utterly unknown in Scotland, and the
necessity for extending it to that country was, if pos-
sible, to prevent conflict between the law of Scotland and
the law of England upon the subject. He knew a case
of a man who had been regularly divorced according to
the Scotch law. Ho came to England and married
again. He was tried for bigamy, and sentenced to
transportation for seven years. Cases were constantly
arising out of the state of law in Scotland, and no lawyer
would venture to give an opinion as to the validity of
either marriages or divorces in Scotland, under some
circumstances. It was of the greatest importance that
the laws 0110111 d be assimilated between the two coun-