, 1880-06-13

such marriage held by your Church as pro-
hbted IN Scripture? Certainly not It ts Con
Cardinal Wisenan
Mr. Gladstone thus expressed himself on
the subject:
For many years have felt the pressure of
this subject to be extreme. Among certain
classes the change proposed would not be With
out disturbing effect on domestic relations;
but these classes limited and select, and it is
the mass Of the community we must look to IN
dealing With such question, when eons.oeF q
religion, among the most respected III their sew
erni communions,--m among the Roman
The ana %
Ing such man US DR.. HOOK, who might, per.
haps, be described as the first parish minister OF
motives which have induced 50 many persons
who have had practical experience Of the con
sequences produced by the present state OF the
shrink from the responsibility it would entail.
Some twelve or fourteen years ago. formed
the opiuion that the fairest course would be to
legitimze their issue, leaving to EACH religious
community the question OF attaching to such
marriages religious character; and the honoT7 e
Chnmbcrs) has shown wise judgment and con-
clliatory temper in reducing hts demand to
mIntr1um, and introducing bill to do no more
than ObvtAtg the rulp0uS consequences OF the
present state OF the law.
John Bright also advocated the bill:
He bad heard this question discussed many
must y that he never heard in that Society
any OF those fearful. vaticfnations which he had
heard from the Opposition side Of the House
great rule in these cases. Men and women were
themselves tho best judges, on the whole, of the
matrimonial contracts they should make. He
Of cotn11ton JUSTICE as between the rich class
and the poor. He asked the House by an em-
phatIc vote to affirm The princip]c-for this was
and women If this country in tho chief concern
Of their lives, rs against law in respect OF
which there was no prctense that it had foun-
daton in Nature or received q sanction from
revelation.
4 lady, the Countess Of Charlemont, dis
cussing the bill from woman's standpoint,
said:
There is one argument, and Lady Charlemont I
considers 1t IL strong one, in favor or such mar- |
riages. which is. that now the foolish opponents
hereof say that a woman would never feel safe |
u admitting her sister to her house resident !
L after the wife's death q marriage between the |
xidower and the sister were possible. This Is
prevent woman having cousin often dear !
IS sister-or friend to stay with her. Now, II !
/ kind girl goes to nurse and comfort her dead
listers children-fOr whom she must have Il
lAtural nffcction-old gossfPs shake their heads !
Ind tnalign her, though, as the lnw stands tnot,
Is m k
Ter? \ stranger? Well the kind aunt would
70 thrust asidc for some gildy girl, who would
ave no love for them. perhaps even feeling
# rcpulsiou.
In this country there has never been any
controversy on the subject No one has ever
'rgaed here that the sentence from Lcyiticus
ould be tortured into prohibition of such
marriages. The utmost freedom has been al
owed In such uintters, and no social or re-
igious objection has ever been raised. In
England, however, it is considered as involy-
ng deep principle Of revealed 1avp and OF
'hristtan morality, and after century OF
ctive discussion the advocates Of personal
reedondf In the matter have been unable to
yercome the deep-rooted prejudice that con-
rolls the ruling power in the English Church.