not be a faithful councillor to the Crown in maintaining the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, and therefore he had no claim to the distinction now sought for him.

The Earl of Shrewsbury supported the Bill so far as it contemplated the emancipation of the Jew, but regretted that one of its provisions most unnecessarily and unjustly restricted the Roman Catholic. He should endeavour in Committee to modify that part of the Bill, so that there should be one form of oath for all.

The Earl of Winchelsea solemnly adjured their Lordships not to pass the Bill, which was dictated only by a spirit of infidelity too characteristic of their legislation for the last twenty years, lest they should incur the awful condemnation of those who openly rejected the Messiah.

The Duke of Argyll contended that the admission of the Jews would not affect the Christian character of the country or the Legislature. They could not secure the Christianity of any assembly by imposing oaths. The other House of Parliament was not Christian in the high sense of the word. Even among their Lordships they had no means of guaranteeing the realities of the Christian faith and character. They might inherit the graces and piety of a Wilberforce, or the scepticism of a Bolingbroke. Having admitted to Parliament every sect of religious faith, and every school of philosophical opinion, some of which were essentially un-Christian, such as Unitarian, they could not maintain the disabilities affecting the Jews.

Earl Nelson and the Earl of Desart opposed the Bill, which

was supported by the Earl of Wicklow.

The Bishop of Oxford drew a wide distinction between the principle of admitting the Jews to social position and civil power, by permitting them to administer the law as magistrates, and that of giving them seats in the Legislature, to make laws for a Christian church and people, which, if true to their own profession, they could not do. There being no Jewish constituencies in this country, there was great danger in opening the doors of Parliament to a mere money power, apart from all other considerations. They could neither measure the interest which Jews had in seeking admission to the Legislature, nor the means they had at command for obtaining seats in Parliament. they destroyed the groundwork of Christianity upon which their legislation was based, in order to gratify for a time a handful of ambitious men, they would destroy' Christian England, and ruin the asylum of the scattered Jews.

If

Lord Brougham ridiculed the alarms of the Bishop of Oxford as the most extravagant of all chimeras. Having accorded to members of the Hebrew persuasion judicial functions, official station, and the elective franchise, with power to canvass and spend money at elections, it was absurd to draw an impassable line between those concessions and their admission to seats in the Legislature.

1

The Earl of Carlisle having re-. plied, their Lordships divided

Another measure which excited a deep interest during this Session, though, like the last, it terminated abortively, was the Bill, a second time introduced by Mr. James Stuart Wortley, for the pur pose of removing the legal restriction against marriage with a de ceased wife's sister. In moving for leave to bring in a Bill, on the 22nd of February, to amend the Act of 5 and 6 William IV. chapter 54, so far as relates to marriages within certain degrees of affinity, Mr. Stuart Wortley recapitulated the history of the measure now in his hands, since it was taken up by his father, the late Lord Wharncliffe, in 1841; and he explained the social grievance in which the Bill originated. He described in full detail the effect of Lord Lyndhurst's Act of 1835, legalizing antecedent marriages between a widower and his wife's sister, but annulling marriages contracted subsequently to that date; the restrictive effect of the canon law; and the revival of the restriction by Henry the Eighth, in order to annul his marriage with Catherine of Arragon and permit that with Anna Boleyn. He cited the evidence taken before the Royal Commissioners of Inquiry upon the subject, from which it appeared that between thirty and fifty thousand marriages of widowers with sisters-in-law had taken place since the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act; and, at a moderate calculation, the legitimacy of forty thousand persons must be affected by the present state of the law. These marriages were contracted by persons of moral and religious feelings, who would not in any other respect offend against the law. The grievance related particularly to the affinity that he had mentioned, though a relaxation could

not well be allowed in that respect without allowing it also in the case of marriages with a deceased wife's niece. But he did not propose to extend the permission to any other degree, such as that of a brother's widow. His Act would not be compulsory, but would only protect persons solemnizing or contracting such marriages from any suit in consequence.

The motion was opposed by Mr. A. B. Hope, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr. Henley, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Plumptre, mainly on the ground that the marriages in question were forbidden by Divine authority. They alleged also that the evidence collected by the Royal Commissioners was of a very one-sided character. Sir George Grey gave his hearty assent to the introduction of the Bill, and would support it in his individual capacity. He vindicated the Commissioners, to whom he gave credit for their diligent collection of facts bearing upon the practical operation of the law. Leave was then given, and the Bill afterwards brought in.

Upon the motion for the second reading, it was strongly opposed and debated at much length, several adjournments of the discussion taking place. Mr. Goulburn led the opposition, moving an amendment upon the order of the day, on the 3rd of May, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The right honourable Gentleman contended that if one step were made in the way of relaxing the law of marriage, others would follow, so that the question really at issue was, whether the prohibition should still extend to degrees of affinity or be limited to degrees of consanguinity. He represented that the case against the prohibition now in question

had been got up by a very active organization of legal gentlemen; that it was one-sided; that the statistics were manifestly exaggerated, especially in the number of unlawful marriages alleged to have taken place in defiance of the prohibition; and that several reverend witnesses before the Royal Commissioners had proved that the inconvenience resulting from the prohibition was very slight. Mr. Goulburn quoted the authority of Cranmer and the other Commissioners in the time of Edward the Sixth, interpreting the Levitical prohibitions to hold good; and he enlarged upon the argument that a change of the law authorizing such marriages would painfully interfere with the freedom between brothers and sisters-in-law.

He

On the other side, Mr. Cockburn recapitulated the authorities which sanctioned by an immense preponderance the particular marriage in question. He cited the practice of all the Protestant European and most of the American States. quoted the well-known passage in Leviticus, interpreting its prohibition as limited to the lifetime of the wife; he invalidated the authority of the canon law, by showing how completely its prohibitions in other respects, as in the marriage of the clergy, had been set aside; he contended that the prohibition against the marriage of a widower and sister-in-law originated with ecclesiastical servility to the tyrannical and lustful purposes of Henry the Eighth; and he repeated the arguments derived from the hardship affecting a particular class, who laboured under special restrictions for which no substantial authority or argument of expediency could be adduced.

Mr. Roundell Palmer answered

Mr. Cockburn's argument in a learned and able speech, in which he opposed the Bill on theological, moral, and social grounds. He accepted Mr. Cockburn's challenge to show that the authority of Scripture was not against the marriage; contending that the dry naked letter must not be taken, but the spirit and context of the whole; the principle of which was distinctly laid down thus-" None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to you."

Sir George Grey, in stating the reasons which induced him to vote for the second reading of the Bill, avoided the theological argument, not because he undervalued its importance, but because it had already been fully entered into by some of those who had preceded him in the debate. In addition to this, it was his opinion that the House of Commons was not the place in which that branch of the subject could be satisfactorily disposed of. It was the duty of, as it was competent to, every man to make up his own mind as to the theological argument. If he had arrived at the conclusion that the marriages in question were absolutely prohibited by the law of God, no social consideration should induce him to contravene that prohibition. If, on the other hand, he came to a different conclusion, and found no prohibition of the kind in the divine law, the question was then to be regarded as one which was to be decided by its bearings upon the welfare of society. For himself, he was bound to say that the arguments, by which it had been attempted to show that such marriages were prohibited by the law of God, appeared to him to be inconclusive, and he therefore felt himself at liberty to deal with the

question simply upon social considerations. So far as its social tendencies were concerned, he thought that the preponderance of argument was in favour of the Bill. It was with great deference that he came to this conclusion, considering that many of the objections which had been offered to it were not without their weight. The right honourable Gentleman then briefly detailed the reasons which induced him, on considerations connected with the social and domestic bearings of the measure, to give his support to the motion for its second reading.

Sir Robert H. Inglis rose with great pain to take part in this discussion. The ordinance of marriage, so far as individuals were concerned, was governed by the New Testament; but so far as the choice of persons went, the Old Testament was the rule. Unless the Old Testament were taken in connection with the New Testament, in considering the matter, it followed that men were left without any divine guidance whatever in reference to the question of the choice of parties to be united in marriage. He did not believe that men were thus abandoned, and contended that the Levitical law should be solemnly treated as the basis of the whole question. The general principle of that law was, that a man should not marry one who was near of kin to him. This being admitted, all that followed in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, where the law was laid down, was to be taken by way of illustration. Interpreting the law on this principle, he could not see how any man could avoid the conclusion that the marriages in question were prohibited. He denied the necessary application, to

the case before the House, of the principle laid down by Mr. Cockburn, that that which was not prohibited was permitted. A man was prohibited from marrying his granddaughter. He was not prohibited in words from marrying his daughter; but would anybody say that because the Levitical law did not contain any express prohibition of such an union that it was therefore permissible? He implored the House to reject the Bill, as contrary to the Scriptures, contrary to the law of the Church of England and of the sister Church of Scotland, and offensive to the general feeling of the country.

Mr. Napier, in opposition to the Bill, deprecated the discussion of the subject altogether, but said that, as it had been forced upon the House, it was due to the question-which was the most important that had come before the Legislature for many years-that it should be fully and calmly debated. The supporters of the measure were bound to maintain three propositions: first, that these marriages were not prohibited by the Levitical law; secondly, that they were not contrary to the principles of Christianity; and thirdly, that the general interests of society would be more advanced by the allowance of these marriages than by their prohibition. It would be enough if he disproved either of these propositions. The first involved a question of construction; but he looked to the general scope of the 18th chapter of Leviticus rather than to particular texts, of which, however, that in the 6th verse embodied a general and unequivocal prohibition, qualifying the 18th verse, which, he admitted, was of doubtful construc

tion.

From the letter and mean

ing, as well as the scope and object, of the Jewish law, he deduced the conclusion that it really offered a bar to these marriages. But, upon the second point, Christianity had introduced a very different system-a system of moral purity; and the tendency of this Bill was to lower the relation of marriage one of the foundations of society, which it was the object of Christianity to elevate and purify. He founded his argument against this branch of the adverse case upon the sentiments and practice of the Christian Church in all ages; the general prohibition of these marriages being recognised by the Papal dispensations, which implied an exception from a rule, and by the express declaration of the Reformers; the reasonableness of the prohibition being, moreover, shown by its adoption in the Roman law, and even the Mahometan code, with reference to the exigencies of human society alone. Protesting against the passing, upon the demand of a few interested persons, of a law which would be in conflict with the word of God and the religious feelings of the country, he proceeded to the last pointnamely, supposing this were an open question, on which side was the balance of social advantages? The principle of sound legislation, he observed, was to uphold and elevate morality, which should rest upon Christian principles, especially with reference to an institution based upon religion; and he showed the moral evils of legislating upon an assumption that these marriages were proper in regard to the interests of society, suggesting the suspicions which the measure would cast upon the sister of a wife, whereby a woman of delicate sensibility would be deterred from

tendering the offices of affection to her sister's children, lest she should be liable to an odious misconstruction.

The Lord Advocate felt how unfit that House was for the discussion of topics connected with the religious view of this question, 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 expressly or by plain implication, there was an end of the question; if not, restrictions should not be put upon marriage, where the law of God had left it free. He had investigated 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 of these marriages, proceeded upon the assumption that they were not so forbidden; the Church of England had never held these marriages void, but only voidable; and it would be strange to say that the Church of England had recognised marriages, under any circumstances, 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 Levitical law, punishable with death; but no person had been punished under that law for contracting marriage with a 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