The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-06-26 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

A long conversation took place on the " count out" last
night on Lord Lincoln's motion relative to Vancouver's
Island, but it ended in nothing, further than showing that
it was principally owing to the absence of Lord. Lincoln's
friends that the house was counted out.

The adjourned debate on the bill for legalizing marriages
with a deceased wife's sister, was resumed by
Mr. NAPIER, who spoke at considerable length in op-
position to the measure.
The LORD ADVOCATE felt how unfit that house was for
the discussion of topics connected with the religious view
of this question, or how far these marriages were or were not
prohibited by the word of God. He admitted at once that
if they were forbidden by the word of God, either ex-
pressly or by plain implication, there was an end of the
question ; if not, restrictions should not be put upon mar-
riage where the law of God had left it free. He had in-
vestigated this part of the question with great care and
attention, and had come to the clear conviction that these
marriages were not forbidden by the word of God. The
practice of the Roman Catholic Church, in dispensing
with the bar to these marriages, proceeded upon the as-
sumption that they were not so forbidden, the Church of
England had never held these marriages not void, but only
voidable ; and it would be strange to say that the Church
of England had recognized marriages, under any circum-
stances, as legal, which were repugnant to the word of
God. The old law of Scotland, based upon the Confession
of Faith of 1567, made incestuous marriages, within the
prohibited degrees contained in the Levetical law, punish-
able with death; but no person had been punished under
that law for contracting a marriage with his deceased wife's
sister. If, therefore, these marriages were not prohibited
by the law of God, what right had human legislation to
throw impediments in the way of marriage which that law
did not interpose ? He knew there was an aversion to
these marriages both in Scotland and Ireland, which origi-
nated in religious scruples, there being no aversion to the
union itself; but the foundation of this adverse feeling
was being daily undermined, and with the conviction that
the law of God did not forbid such contracts, the abhor-
rence of them would disappear. He was nut blind to, the
evils which they might create in the upper classes of so-
ciety : but he could not legislate upon such a subject as
marriage with reference to one class only, and he found
that the middle and lower classes—persons of chaste and
moral habits—exercising their own independent opinion,
deemed these marriages not repugnant to the word of
God, and contracted them in spite of the law, which they
considered cruel and tyrannical. Was it wise to tempt
people to rebel against the law, on the ground that it was
in conflict with the Divine command ? Mere legislation,
in opposition to religion and nature, was impolitic, and
must be ineffectual.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the considerations which the Lord
Advocate had admitted to apply to the upper classes ap-
plied equally to the middle. But how was it really with
the poor ? Of the 1,648 marriages of this description, re-
ported by the Commissioners, 1,503 were in the middle
classes, 105 in the upper, and only 40 in the lower. The
fact that the Church of England had held these marriages
as voidable only did not imply that they were regarded in
a favourable view, for the defective state of the law placed
other incestuous marriages, those within the degrees of
affinity, in the same category. This was not a mere
question of civil liberty ; it altered indirectly the lavi of
the Church, releasing clergymen from the obligation of
obedience, in respect to these marriages, to their spiritual
superior. In was not a mere matter of ecclesiastical dis-
cipline ; the bill professed to declare what was the word
of God, and to set aside the ninety-ninth canon. Those
who had made up their minds that there was no Divine
prohibition of these marriages might waive the theologi-
cal discussion ; but those who had come to an opposite
conclusion were compelled to enter upon it, in order to
show that a great religious injunction forbade this bill,
which contravened the law of God as declared through-
out the world for 3,000 years. These marriages were not
only prohibited by the Jews, but the letter of the chap-
ter of Leviticus declared them one of the abominations
for which nations not subjected to the Jewish law were
punished, thereby showing that the prohibition was one
of universal application. .Mr. Gladstone then argued
from the whole sense of the chapter, that the term
" near of kin," in the sixth verse, must mean the
sister of a wife, and contended that the traditional
law of the Jews so understood it. The transition from
Judaism to Christianity must have made the restrictions
upon marriages more rigid ; and in the fifteenth chapter
of the Acts of the Apostles the word "porneia" could
only mean marriages forbidden by the Levitical law.
The prohibition in the Roman civil law, contrary to the
habits of the 'people, must have been derived from the
belief or the Church, when the governing power became
Christian, and the dispensations which began with the
infamous Pope Alexander VI., and had been discouraged
by the Council of Trent, were no evidence of a contrary
opinion in the Romish Church. Upon the social branch
of the question, he expatiated upon the immoral effects of
such a relaxation of the law, which would taint the atmos-
phere of society, lowering the character of domestic feel-
ings, threatening even the purity of sisterly love, and he
asked Mr. Wortley where this course of legislation was to
stop—whether he would take his stand upon practical ex-
pediency, which would lead him on to other relaxations;
or upon the letter of the Levitical law, which would open
to us the most horrible forms of incest ; or upon the law
of nature ; If the last, the law of nature, which meant no
more than the reception of revelation, depended upon the
law of Christianity.
Mr. S. WORTLEY, as far as the time and patience of
the House would permit, replied to some of the objections
urged against the bill.

The House divided—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
The Bill was then read a second time.

1'77
..... 14:;
-34

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TnuRsDAy.

In compliance with a request made to him by Mr.
D'lsraeli, Lord John Russell set apart Monday, July 2,
for the discussion of the hon. gentleman's motion on the
state of the nation.

Lard NUGENT moved for the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the practicability of better pro-
viding for the maintenance of the indigent poor of Eng-
land and Wales, by an equal and general apportionment
of the burden of the same.

The motion, after a long discussion, was negatived
itl mut a divison.
Mr. HAMILTON then drew the attention of the house
to the subject of education in Ireland, and concluded, for
an address to her Majesty, praying that she would be
graciously pleased to direct that such a modification of the
system of National Education In Ireland might be made
as might remove the conscientious objections which a large
proportion of the clergy and laity of the Established
Church entertained to that system as at present carried
'into operation ; or otherwise, that means might be taken
to enable those of the clergy and laity of the Established
Church, who entertained such conscientious objections,
to extend the blessings of Scriptural education in Ireland.
Sir W. SomErtvILLE opposed the motion ; and Mr.
BERNARD supported it.
The discussion was then continued by Mr. Howe, Sir
A. Brooke, Mr. Newdegate, and Lord C. Hamilton; who
were followed by Lord J. Russell, who opposed the motion.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—for the
motion, 102; against it, 162: majority, GO.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-FRIDAY.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to make
his financial statement. He commenced by saying that
although not so favourable as it would have been had it