There was, no doubt, a very rich and powerful minority which took great interest in the question, and which made itself loudly heard; but he must confess he had never seen anything of that general feeling which was said to exist. There was, at all events, one portion of the community to whose voice in such a case great weight ought to be attached, and the great majority of whom were strongly opposed to this Bill. He meant the women of England. No doubt some women of high character and refined feelings might be in favour of it; but he himself had never yet heard a woman advocate it. As for the hardship on the poor, he doubted its existence. It was comparatively very seldom that a poor man was tempted to marry his sister-in-law. In the humbler ranks of life women married very young, and generally a widower would have great difficulty in finding a sister-in-law unmarried. He would only say, in conclusion, that in no nation had homes been more sacred than in this country. There was a sacredness in the relation of husband and wife, of brother and sister, and of brother-in-law and sisterin-law, which could not be disturbed now without serious danger. He entreated their Lordships not to sanction a measure which would strike a blow at the purity and sacredness of English homes, and which would in the end not tend to produce happiness and comfort, but discomfort and trouble and sorrow

these marriages of affinity. Probably | however, deny that the nation had promost of us have seen an extract from a nounced itself in favour of this Bill. letter signed by distinguished Roman Catholic Prelates to this effect. But surely even their words may be claimed as against the lawfulness of these marriages. These words are-"With us the impediment is diriment of marriage." It is therefore conceded at once that there is an unlawfulness in these unions. But then the principle on which the Roman Church goes is this-It is only in the direct line of descent that marriages are contrary to the primary law of nature, and eternally wrong. Other marriages, even of close consanguinity, must have been permitted in the earliest times, or mankind could not have been perpetuated from a single pair; and though afterwards not only marriages of consanguinity, as between brothers and sisters, but of affinity too, are forbidden by positive laws, yet where there is not an eternal moral principle involved, the Church can give dispensation. Still the admission, that generally the affinity between brother and sisterin-law is "diriment of marriage," is an admission of the normal unlawfulness of such marriages. Without presuming to argue with Roman Catholic Prelates on their view of dispensing power, we may fairly say, a marriage cannot be unlawful unless it be contrary to the law of God. In such a case there is no power to bind what has not been bound in heaven. And, on the other hand, if it be contrary to a Divine law, whether natural and eternal or positive and commanded, then we cannot believe that there is any power on earth which can lawfully dispense with it. It had been stated by the noble Lord who opened the debate, that the marriages which the Bill proposed to legalize were very numerous among the poor. In his experience, however, as having formerly worked much among the poor in very large parishes-though he regretted to that many descriptions of wickedness and other unlawful marriages, such as between uncle and niece, had often come to his knowledge-he had never met with one marriage with a deceased wife's sister among the poor. He was aware that in the public papers a hope had been expressed that their Lordships would give the Bill their assent, inasmuch as in doing so they would be only yielding to the judgment of the nation. He must,

say

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY hoped the House would permit him to say a very few words on the present occasion, being himself one who had formerly had charge of a similar Bill which had failed to pass its second reading, although it was lost by a majority of only 10. He was very unwilling and, indeed, quite unable to follow the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down (the Bishop of Ely) into his elaborate argument as to the interpretation to be put on the Scriptural texts which bore upon the subject. That the true interpretation of these texts was doubtful might, he thought, be very fairly inferred from the variety of opinions on the point, and he was sure the right rev. Prelate, high though his authority unquestionably was, would have the candour to admit that he did not regard his own interpretation as abso

lutely correct. But, be that as it might, by the noble Duke opposite that if the he (the Earl of Kimberley) was pre-present measure were to pass into law pared in supporting the Bill to take his other and more objectionable marriages stand on broader grounds. He for one would in course of time have to be sanccould not conceive how the code of law tioned. But he (the Earl of Kimberley) laid down in Leviticus could be con- entirely denied that any such considered as containing a moral law bind- sequences must necessarily follow. As to ing on men for all time. Let him take the Bill being supported by a mere clique, a case involving the highest considera- as had been suggested by the right rev. tions of morality by way of illustration Prelate, to promote their own personal of the absurdity of maintaining the con- objects, he would simply observe that it trary view. In Leviticus it was laid down was far more likely that a measure which that the adulterer and the adultress had so frequently been brought before the were to be put to death; but did any House of Commons, and which had so Christian country, he would ask, regard often been passed by that House, was itself at the present day as being bound one on which a large number of people by that precept? The truth was, that throughout the country took a deep inthere were certain things in the Mosaic terest. There might be a small minority law which were only applicable to the active in urging it forward, because no times in which they were enunciated. movement could be successful unless it But passing over, without further com- had energetic leaders; but the Bill, he ment, the religious aspect of the ques- believed, was generally acceptable to tion, he would briefly advert to the ar- the community at large, and he should guments which were urged against the greatly regret seeing it again rejected in Bill, on social grounds, which constituted their Lordships' House. fair matter for discussion, and which THE BISHOP OF RIPON said, he might be stated without the slighest must ask for the indulgence of their passion either on one side or the other. Lordships while he stated the grounds For his own part, he could not regard a on which he should support the Bill; Marriage Law as being founded on any and he asked for it the more earnestly safe basis unless it had the sanction of because it was his misfortune to differ the general opinion of the people of the from a majority of his right rev. country in which it existed. In that Brethren, and also from many others vital respect it seemed to him our Mar- whose opinions he greatly respected, and riage Law was deficient, seeing that to whose judgment, if it were possible there were so many persons who did not for him to do so, he would gladly bow. look upon it in respect to the point dealt The first question which presented itself with in the Bill as binding upon their to his mind in connection with the parconsciences. It seemed to him that it ticular class of marriages which the Bill was rather a question of social expedi- proposed to legalize was-" What is the ency than of moral law. He never, he voice of Scripture with regard to these might add, could see any great force in marriages ?" If that voice had clearly the argument derived from what the right and definitely spoken, if the Word of rev. Prelate had termed "the sanctity of God had prohibited these marriages, the home," in the case of a husband and no human enactment could possibly make his sister-in-law. Different persons na- them lawful. Indeed, the mere attempt turally took different views of the sub- to do so would be wholly unjustifiable. ject; and for himself, notwithstanding After a most patient investigation of the what had fallen from the right rev. Pre- subject, he was entirely unable to arrive late, he must contend that no man, at at the conclusion expressed by his right all events occupying the social position rev. Brother who had just addressed the of their Lordships, could have a sister-House, that Scripture prohibited these in-law of his own age to live in his house after his wife's death without giving rise to scandal; nor did he think he would be able to continue such a relation for any considerable time. That being the fact he thought those who were in favour of the change had the best of the argument. It was contended The Earl of Kimberley

marriages-on the contrary, he believed that tacitly and by implication the law of God permitted them. He would not attempt to follow his right rev. Brother into the intricacies of that verbal criticism which he had made of different texts of Scripture; but he wished to quote the testimony of some who were

after all, be a mere matter of inference and con

admitted to be able and learned theo- | (Leviticus xviii., 18) by considerations drawn logians, whose attention had been spefrom analogy, whether scriptural or unscriptural.” cially directed to this particular ques- Scriptural grounds, I feel no doubt at all." "That such a restriction is wrong on tion, and whose opinions coincided with his own as to the lawfulness, ac- in his opinion that the Word of God If he (the Bishop of Ripon) stood alone cording to Scripture, of these marriages. First of all, he would cite the was not opposed to such marriages, he opinion of a right rev. Brother, whose should be ready to suspect the soundness absence on this occasion, and the reason that his opinion was confirmed by some of his judgment; but when he found for that absence, their Lordships must all deplore. The Bishop of St. David's of the ablest and most diligent students (Dr. Thirlwall), in the course of his and interpreters of sacred Scripture, he speech against the Marriages Bill in felt strengthened in the conviction that 1851, saidthe restriction on such marriages as this upon any authority of Scripture. If, Bill proposed to legalize was not founded then, Scripture did not support the existing law, was it wise or right to make by human enactment that to be a sin which the Word of God did not declare to be a sin? Of coure, if the Scriptural argument against such marriages were abandoned those who objected to them were, as everyone acknowledged, thrown at once upon the consideration of this Again, the Rev. Dr. Alexander M'Caul, question under its social aspect. Now, Professor of Divinity and Hebrew Li- it seemed strange to assume that the terature in King's College, London, various social evils which had been resaidferred to would certainly arise in this "Having again carefully examined the ques-country, if these marriages were legaltion, and consulted some of the highest authori-ized, although in countries where these ties in Hebrew literature as to the meaning of the marriages had always been permitted by Scripture passages, I am confirmed in the opinion law no such evils were found to exist. formerly expressed, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not only not prohibited, either expressly or by implication, but that, according to Leviticus xviii. 18, (concerning the translation of which there is not the least uncertainty), such marriage is plainly allowed. I confess that when I entered upon this inquiry I had

"The view which he had heard taken in that House respecting the operation of Scripture must, struction, and, applying himself to that view of the subject, he would only say such marriages as the Bill was intended to legalize were not prohibited, but were tacitly by implication permitted by the words of the chapter which had been so often quoted. He protested against the opinions expressed by those who contended that there existed any Divine prohibition."-[See 3 Hansard, exiv.]

not an idea that the case of those who wish a change in the present Marriage Law was so strong. I had thought that the opinions of grave and learned students of the Bible were more equally divided, and that, as authorities were pretty evenly balanced, they who had contracted such marriages must bear the inconveniences arising from doubtful interpretation. But I do not think so now. Confirmed by the testimony of antiquity and the judgment of the most considerable interpreters at the Reformation, and since the Reformation, I now believe that there is no reasonable room for doubt that there is no verse in the Bible of which the interpretation is more sure than that of Leviticus xviii., 18; and I think it a case of great hardship that they should, by the civil law, be punished as transgressors, whose marriage, according to Divine law, is permitted and valid; and harder still that the children of such marriage, legitimate in the sight of the infallible Judge, should be visited with civil disabilities."

No one would dispute the Biblical learning of Dr. Tregelles, who said—

"I fully accord with Dr. M'Caul in his criticisms." "It is futile to set aside the definite permission given in the Word of God

He believed this was almost the only country in the world in which a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was illegal, and he had not heard that any of the social evils which existed in countries where such unions were lawful could be directly traced to the state of the law. Bishop M'Ilwaine stated that in America, although these marriages were celebrated without disapprobation, he was not conscious of any evils having arisen from them. But it was said that the sanctity and purity of domestic life would be imperilled if this Bill were allowed to pass. He confessed that he had a far higher opinion of the sanctity and purity of domestic life in this country, than to believe that it rested on so weak a foundation as a restriction which was not sanctioned by the Word of God. He believed the sanctity and purity of domestic life would remain unaffected if this Bill became law, as he sincerely trusted it would. All the arguments employed with respect to the social aspect of the question seemed directed against certain imaginary evils which it was assumed would arise if the law were altered;

Again, the very rev. the Dean of
Carlisle, Dr. Close said—

"I believe such marriages as you wish to make lawful are already lawful, according to the letter and spirit of Holy Scripture, and I hope the civil and ecclesiastical law will speedily be made conformable to the Divine."

He might also cite the testimony of the
Dean of Lichfield, better known as Canon
Champneys, who said—

but there had been no allusion during this "People in general do not consider such mardebate to the great social evils which ex-riages improper. They cannot be proved to be isted at the present time, and which improper by Scripture. The question is, therefore, one of expediency, and my experience as a might be directly traced to the operation parochial minister induces me to think the measure of the law. Was it no evil that we should expedient." have a law which it was found in practice utterly impossible to maintain, and which was broken and violated continually? Was it no evil that there should exist among a large class of the population a sense of wrong and oppression, because it was felt that the law of the land hindered them from doing that which by the law of God they were permitted to do? Or was it no evil that the existing state of the law was in many instances directly provocative of crime? He wished to adduce some testimony on this point. His right rev. Brother who last addressed the House (the Bishop of Ely) had stated that he had been stationed in many different parishes with large populations, but that he had seen no evils resulting from the operation of the law as it now stood. The right Such were the opinions of eminently rev. Prelate's experience had been sin- practical and Christian men who had gularly fortunate. He had himself had had wide experience in dealing with the care of parishes with large popula-large parishes. This Bill would affect a tions, and he had seen great evils result class of cases involving a great hardfrom the operation of the law. He would ship which ought to be removed by not, however, quote his own authority, but would take the testimony of one who was revered by a large number of Christians in this country, and who to the regret of a large circle of friends had been recently removed from among them. The late very rev. Dr. Dale, Dean of Rochester, who for a long period of his life had charge of large parishes, said—.

"So far as my parochial experience extends, the prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister operates far more to the promotion than to the prevention of crime. Among the lower classes cohabitation without marriage is almost invariably the result, while the few conscientious persons who are deterred by the law from forming such a connection are precisely those to whom it would be a benefit. Were the prohibitions founded on Scripture we ought at whatever sacrifice to obey God rather than man; but I cannot see the expediency of a law which, having no such sanction, is observed only by the scrupulous, evaded by the wealthy, and defied or disregarded by the poor." He would also cite the testimony of another divine whose name was never mentioned without honour. He alluded to the very rev. Dr. Hook, Dean of Chichester, who had, perhaps, had a larger experience than any living man in the charge of large parishes. Dean Hook said

The Bishop of Ripon

It appears to me, therefore, that first, as Scripture shows that there is nothing immoral in such a connection, and, secondly, as it is obvious that much evil would be prevented, many poor children saved from misery and ruin by having that person over them who, in a majority of instances, would be the next best substitute for a mother, my own mind is led to believe that the law of man ought to tally in this respect with the law of God."

the Legislature. After the passing of the Act of 1835, commonly called Lord Lyndhurst's Act, there was a general impression-whether a right one or not he would not say-that persons who wished to contract such marriages as were now under discussion might legally do so in a foreign country where such marriages were lawful. It was believed that marriages so celebrated were lawful even according to the law of this

land.

In numerous instances persons had acted in that belief; they had gone abroad and had complied with all the conditions which they supposed necessary to make their marriage valid; and it was not until a decision to the contrary was recently given in one of the Superior Courts that, for the first time, they learned that they had acted under a mistake, and that their marriage could not be recognized by the law of this country. Such persons had to endure a great hardship in no legal remedy being provided to render valid marriages which had been so contracted. This Bill would have that effect, and for that, among other reasons, he most earnestly hoped that it would pass into law. Believing, as he did, that the re

strictions which were sought to be re- | fined to one degree of affinity? Why moved were not founded upon any au- was the aunt to become the best stepthority of Scripture; that, on the con- mother? All women were naturally fond trary, the Word of God tacitly sanctioned of children, and kind to them; but, if such marriages; that the existing re- they had any of their own, jealous of strictions imposed a burden on men's their husband's children by another consciences, and were in many cases pro- woman, even if that woman was their vocative of crime; and believing that sister; and why did not the Bill include the alteration of the law would be a wives' nieces, or daughters by former great relief to many who justly deserved husbands? It was well to suppose the to receive it, although it was with the tenderness of a wife's sister; but of deepest regret that he found himself what much greater value to a widow at variance with the opinions of so many would be the assistance of a husband's for whom he had a profound respect, he brother. Yet this marriage was never must vote in favour of the Bill. proposed for the advancement in life of the children. How did this agitation arise? Not from those who wished to alter the law, but from those who had already violated it; who, in their amorous maturity, could not control their passions, and now sought to be put on a footing with those whose modesty or morality had induced them to obey the law. This proposal would be almost compulsory. If a man might marry his wife's sister, he must marry her; for society would never tolerate their residence together unmarried. It was all very well for the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Ripon) to say that it was a libel on English women to state that, if these sisters were marriageable, they could not live in their married sister's house; but opportunity assisted immorality, and the permitted familiarity would not be checked by the dreadful notion of an incestuous intercourse as now. This was so felt, that he had heard a comical reason given in favour of the Bill by a gentleman who had three wife's sisters, whom he was desired to retain in his house, and said, if he would deny they were his sisters, as he might marry them, he would get rid of them at once.

LORD LYVEDEN said, he was anxious to address the House, as, although the Mover of this Bill and Her Majesty's Government had disclaimed all party motives, the Liberal Press had tried to make the support of this measure a test of Liberality. He protested against the assumption that Liberals should be advocates of every bold innovation without considering its advantages. He rested his objection to this Bill entirely upon what would be the social effects of its passing, in considering which their Lordships must proceed entirely upon their own views, for they could not bring to bear any experience, while there were very few facts on which they could rely. Why alter a system which had, according to the Lord Chancellor, existed since the 6th century" and the conversion of Ethelbert ?" He denied that this Bill was so universally popular. His noble Friend (Lord Houghton) had truly said it had passed the House of Commons by a large majority; yet, without wishing to depreciate that expression of opinion, he could not refrain from pointing out that, in some cases, the votes of Members of the House of Commons were dependent on the ideas of a handful of their constituents. Let their Lordships look to the number of Petitions that were presented in favour of the admission of Mr. Newdegate into nunneries-[Laughter]-he meant his Motion for an inquiry into conventual establishments. For that scheme there were 249,637 signatures-for this only Public opinion, in this form, had not shown itself in favour of this measure to anything like the extent to which it was provoked by the other proposal, now generally rejected. The issue raised by the Bill was an extremely narrow one. Why was it con

26,230!

He would now read to the House a beautiful passage from the memoirs of Mr. Gibbon, setting forth the charms of the relation of brother and sister

"The relation of a brother and sister, especially if they do not marry, appears to me of a very singular nature. It is a familiar and tender friendship with a female much about your own age, an affection perhaps softened by the secret influence of sex, but pure from any mixture of sensual desire-the sole species of Platonic love which can be indulged with truth and without danger."

He contended that the further you could spread such pure intimacies between the sexes the greater the advantage you con