L I B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N 1 V ERSITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 r/ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 WILLIAM PAGE WOOD, ESQ.
 
 LONDON : 
 GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
 
 ST. John's square.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 WILLIAM PAGE WOOD, ESQ. 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL 
 
 FOR ALTERING THE 
 
 LAW OF MARRIAGE, 
 
 FEBRUARY 27, 1850. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. Paul's church yard, and watkrioo ilace. 
 
 1850.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 I HAVE been requested to publish this Speech by 
 many persons who concur with me in the opinions 
 which I have expressed. 
 
 An active agitation has been carried on in support 
 of the Bill ; and I have therefore thought it right to 
 contribute, by every means in my power, to counter- 
 act a measure which I believe to be fraught with the 
 most disastrous consequences to the purity and hap- 
 piness of the Homes of England. 
 
 Time did not allow me to develop completely the 
 line of argument which I adopted ; and I have added 
 a few suggestions in the Appendix, being desirous to 
 give as faithful a statement as I have been able to 
 frame from memory, and from the newspaper reports 
 of the Speech itself. 
 
 A 2
 
 , uiuc '
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 It is not without considerable difficulty that I have 
 resolved to address the House upon this subject. 
 When it was before their consideration last year, 
 I felt myself overwhelmed by its extreme difficulty, 
 and forbore to enter upon a discussion so delicate ; 
 involving, as it does, the relations between the male 
 and female portions of our community, on the one 
 hand, and, on the other, questions of a theological 
 nature with reference to the correct interpretation of 
 portions of the Holy Scriptures. My embarrass- 
 ment has, however, in some measure been removed 
 by the tone and temper in which the matter has 
 been discussed ; a tone and temper for which, it is 
 only just to say, we are mainly indebted to the 
 example set by the right honourable gentleman who 
 has introduced the measure. I may add that there are 
 provisions in the present Bill which secure due liberty
 
 6 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 of conscience to the Clergy, and mitigate, though 
 they do not remove, my objections to its principle. 
 
 In the course of the observations which I shall 
 feel it my duty to make, I wish, in the first instance, 
 to approach the consideration of the subject on 
 grounds wholly independent of the Divine approba- 
 tion or disapprobation of the marriages which it is 
 proposed to sanction. I have a strong opinion upon 
 that point myself, and shall not shrink from stating 
 it before I sit down ; but I apprehend that I am 
 not therefore incompetent to appreciate arguments 
 founded on our natural reason, any more than a 
 believer in revealed religion generally would there- 
 fore be unable to follow the reasoning of Paley in his 
 " Natural Theology," or of Butler in his " Analogy." 
 
 Let us, then, discuss the question, as if in the 
 absence of the slightest indication of the revealed 
 will of God regarding it. Now, it has been con- 
 stantly asserted that the onus of proving that mar- 
 riage with the sister of a deceased wife is unlawful 
 lies upon those who hold that opinion, instead of 
 being imposed upon those who ask us to vary a 
 long-established law. And the argument is usually 
 put thus: Marriage is a thing lawful in itself; and 
 if you cannot prove a given marriage to be forbidden 
 by the law of God, then you are not entitled to pro- 
 hibit it. But if this mode of argument be correct, 
 what are we to say to the heathen nations of anti- 
 quity, who had no revealed law of God to guide 
 them, but nevertheless had their marriage laws, and 
 imposed prohibitions and restraints, more or less
 
 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. 7 
 
 stringent, in respect of marriage ? Every nation had 
 some rule upon the subject ; and it is remarkable, 
 that in proportion as you find a nation advanced in 
 its general tone of morals, so do the restrictions 
 become more positive and decided. Among Asiatic 
 nations, not only polygamy, but marriages with sis- 
 ters of the whole blood, were permitted. The 
 nations of Europe did not allow polygamy. The 
 Athenians allowed marriage with a sister of the half- 
 blood ; but the Romans, who were as distinguished 
 for their sturdy morals as for their sturdy valour, 
 w^ere far more strict in their marriage law. They 
 not only forbade the marriage with a sister, but, in 
 Rome's earhest days, that of first cousins also ; and 
 they w'ere equally strict in their law of divorce, a 
 subject which has a very near connexion with that 
 w^hich T am now discussing. It is veiy remarkable 
 also, that w^hen the custom had become frequent of 
 adopting children, the adopted child was forbidden 
 to marry with the children of his adopting parent ; 
 a prohibition obviously founded on analogous grounds 
 to those which, independently of revelation, render 
 it inexpedient to permit marriage with a wife's sister. 
 But relaxation of morals has usually been attended 
 with relaxation of the laws relating to marriage. 
 Civilization has its vast advantages, which I am far 
 from wishing to depreciate ; but it is usually accom- 
 panied by a relaxation of morals against which all 
 highly civilized nations should be peculiarly on their 
 guard. Thus it was w^th Rome. Fii'st, she relaxed 
 lier law of divorce ; then she gave up some of the
 
 8 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 prohibitions against particular marriages. Atlengtli 
 a remarkable case occurred, as to which we have the 
 advantage of a full report in the historian Tacitus. 
 It is the case of the emperor Claudius. He was 
 desirous of marrpng his own niece. Tacitus, him- 
 self a stern moralist, tells us, that it was a long time 
 before the emperor dared to bring forward this pro- 
 posal ; that he was afraid of public feeling ; but that 
 there were parasites about him ready to prove that 
 his wish was a reasonable one, and that the objec- 
 tions to it were based on mere antiquated prejudice. 
 So at last he went down to the Senate, and made 
 them a speech, the arguments of which were ver}'^ 
 like those used now by the right honourable mover 
 of this bill. The report of it runs thus : " Nova 
 nobis in fratrum filias conjugia, sed aliis gentibus 
 solennia, nee lege ulla prohibita : et sohrinarum diii 
 ignorata, tempore addito percrebuisse : morem ac- 
 commodari prout conducat, et fore hoc quoque in his 
 quse mox usurpentur." That was, in other words, 
 if I may paraphrase it for the present occasion — 
 " Well, it is true our people don't much like such 
 marriages, our ancestors had prejudices on the 
 subject ; but look at Germany and America, they 
 are very common there. The old councils of the 
 Church, too, prohibit them ; but then they once 
 prohibited the marriages of first cousins, wliich was 
 a clear mistake : therefore, why should we attend to 
 them when they object to the wife's sister?" The 
 Emperor was successful in persuading the Senate, 
 and married the lady who poisoned him.
 
 ■ THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. 9 
 
 But, Sir, let me speak more seriously, for the 
 question before the House appears to me one of the 
 deepest interest. I have never known one of graver 
 import. We have often before us questions of gi'eat 
 importance with reference to the distribution of 
 political power, or of wealth ; but we are now 
 invited to take a step which will effect a social revo- 
 lution ; to alter, in fact, the moral and social position 
 of every home in England. I say advisedly, the 
 moral and social position of our homes, and not the 
 religious, because that is beyond our power. Yes, 
 Sir, the unanimous vote of this House could not 
 alter one jot or one tittle of the Divine law. Pass 
 this measure, if you please, yet they who avail them- 
 selves of it must take upon themselves the awful 
 responsibility of deciding whether their marriage be 
 lawful in the eye of God. I am addressing myself, 
 then, be it remembered, to the moral and social 
 question alone. Then, Sir, I ask. Does the onus of 
 proving the fitness of the present state of the law 
 rest upon us, or upon those who would change it ? 
 Why, ever since England was England, we have 
 Uved, and regulated our homes, and formed our 
 relationships under a law which prohibits marriage 
 with a wife's sister ! Let those who are dissatisfied 
 with its provisions prove to us their grievance. 
 Have they carefully considered the social relations 
 of our English homes as compared with those of 
 foreign countries? I am not one of those who 
 think it wise for nations, any more than for indi- 
 viduals, to indulge the habit of contemplating their
 
 10 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 own excellencies and the faults of their neighbours ; 
 but, when questions affecting the basis of our social 
 institutions are urged upon us, and we are told 
 to look to foreign nations as our example, the com- 
 parison is forced upon us. Is there, then, any 
 honourable member prepared to say that he has ob- 
 served practical advantages in the social system of 
 other countries with reference to marriage, or the 
 sanctity of the marriage tie, as contrasted with our 
 own ? I confess. Sir, that I have been led to the 
 contrary conclusion, so far as my own experience 
 has extended. There are two points which appear 
 to me singularly to distinguish our own country in 
 this matter; namely, the confiding frankness and 
 innocent familiarity and liberty of our young un- 
 married women on the one hand, and the deep devo- 
 tion and the domestic attachment of our manied 
 women on the other — the one indeed appears to me 
 to be a natural consequence of the other. The 
 liberty allowed to our young people renders them 
 less desirous of leaving their home when married. 
 We are, moreover, as compared with the continental 
 nations, a remarkably " stay-at-home " people, not 
 entering so constantly into society ; and, consequently, 
 there is a greater degree of intimacy amongst those 
 who are admitted to the home circle. Put these things 
 together. The sister-in-law is brought up in the habit 
 of open frankness ; she is admitted to her sister's 
 home as one of its inmates, and to all its consequent 
 familiarity. And does not every one who hears me 
 feel, and know, that he is on terms of intimacy and
 
 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. 11 
 
 familiarity with his sister-in-law which would not be 
 permitted in the case of any other unmarried woman ? 
 Are we, then, to remove the barrier which custom, 
 growing out of a settled system of law, has so long 
 interposed, no less than religious belief, between 
 parties so situated ? 
 
 Sir, it may be well to say that this is a low view 
 of moral obligation ; but I regret to say that the pro- 
 gress of our civilization, with its many undoubted 
 blessings and advantages, is attended by certain dis- 
 advantages also, and specially by a relaxation of the 
 bonds of morality, and a lowering of its tone. It is 
 not a time, therefore, to throw away any restraint ; 
 nay, I think I have observed symptoms, not very 
 obscure, of a degradation of moral feeling in respect 
 of this very subject before the House. It is not long 
 since a person convicted of familiarities, which had 
 degenerated into crime, towards his wife's sister, was 
 appointed to an office of public trust. In the evi- 
 dence, too, before the commissioners, which we are 
 now asked to act upon, I find the case stated of a 
 party who washed to marry his wife's sister, but, 
 finding that the law would not permit it, agreed to 
 live with her in concubinage. The witness states 
 that the parties are respectable, and " keep their car- 
 riage." The truth is, that in what is termed a 
 civilized age there is a general reluctance to visit 
 any offence severely ; there is a softness of character 
 which craves and bestows indulgence, where, at a 
 more vigorous and manly period, punishment would 
 have been awarded to, nay, even accepted by, the
 
 12 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 wrong-doer, as a rational and beneficial check, a 
 safeguard against our own frailty. The same over- 
 wrought feelings which prompt a morbid sympathy, 
 even with the murderer, operate yet more strongly 
 in favour of those who have been led by softer pas- 
 sions to the commission of offences against public 
 morals. But no one will say that these tendencies 
 should operate in favour of a relaxation of laws 
 framed with reference to a loftier standard of right 
 and wrong. 
 
 If, then, the burthen of proof be on the promoters 
 of a new law, or the advocates of a repeal of a re- 
 striction which has existed as long as our community 
 itself, what are the arguments with which we are 
 pressed? I certainly was never more astonished 
 than when I first heard the proposed measure advo- 
 cated on the ground of a charitable regard to the 
 poor. Now, I had never met with an instance of 
 such a marriage being had or desired amongst the 
 poor. I am sure every one, who has had much 
 experience of the habits of the poor, must know 
 that they marry at so early an age that it would be 
 a rare chance for a widower to find any of his late 
 wife's sisters still unmarried. But the case does not 
 rest upon general reasoning. The able solicitors 
 employed to get up the case in support of this Bill 
 have, it appears, ascertained that since Lord Lynd- 
 hurst's Act about fifteen hundred marriages with a 
 wife's sister have taken place. Out of these, one 
 hundred and fifty, or thereabouts, were amongst 
 classes in a professional or higher rank, about
 
 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. 13 
 
 thirteen hundred in the middle classes of society, 
 and not fifty, or little more than three per cent, of 
 them, amongst the poor. This is a statistical fact ; 
 and although the right honourable gentleman has to- 
 day read to the House many letters from clergymen 
 stating that they know of many such cases amongst 
 the poor, I confess that I have very little confidence 
 in general impressions, where there has been no 
 statistical inquiry. I remember a circumstance 
 which affords a good ilhistration of the difference 
 between a general impression and a statistical cer- 
 tainty. A medical friend of mine was desirous of 
 ascertaining the proportion of individuals having 
 light hair and blue eyes in given localities, with 
 reference to certain statistics of disease. For that 
 pm'pose he visited the schools of the poor in various 
 parts of England, and attained such a knowledge of 
 the probable proportion in any given locality as to 
 enable him to make a tolerably accurate guess before 
 actually counting the children. In one instance he 
 entered a school of about seven hundred children in 
 London, and, in order to test the habits of observa- 
 tion of the master, asked him, if he could tell him 
 how many of his children had this peculiarity. The 
 master replied, he thought he could guess the 
 number pretty nearly, and said, "he should think 
 about one half." My friend answered, " Before I 
 count them, I will tell you there is not one-seventh." 
 He then counted them, and it was scarcely one-tenth. 
 So much for general impressions. I have myself in- 
 quired into the matter in the parish in which we
 
 14 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 are now sitting. The two parishes, indeed, of St. 
 Margaret and St. John are united, as regards the 
 relief of the poor, we have 60,000 parishioners, and 
 about 26,000 of the lowest poor. Now, I have made 
 inquiry of persons specially employed by the clergy 
 and others in visiting the poor, and who have had 
 great experience in so doing, and they tell me that 
 they only know of one instance of marriage with 
 a wife's sister amongst the poor of these parishes, 
 and that the man is looked down upon by his neigh- 
 bours '. There are, however, two cases of men 
 living with their own sisters ; and of course in such 
 a parish you may meet with other instances of cri- 
 minal intercourse. I contend that, if this case is to 
 rest upon the position of the poor, it must be given 
 up. My belief is, that the poor, of all others, retain 
 the impressions of long-existing customs. They 
 become deeply ingrained in their minds ; and an 
 impression having once been made upon them that 
 such marriages are incestuous, could with difficulty 
 be removed. In England we have reason to believe 
 this impression is strong ; but in Scotland it is yet 
 stronger. In truth, the poor are more tenacious in 
 such matters than the rich, and are less susceptible 
 of those changes of opinion which civilization and 
 luxury introduce. 
 
 Well, then, we are reduced, by statistics, to the 
 fact that a certain portion of the middle class, small 
 when compared with the entire population of the 
 
 ' See Appendix A.
 
 THE LAW or MAURI AGK. 15 
 
 country, have broken the existing law. Is this, sir, a 
 sufficient ground for so momentous an alteration in 
 our whole social fabric ? I wish to say nothing 
 unnecessarily severe of those who have so broken the 
 existing law, but I ask if it be not some token of 
 relaxation of morals, that in most of those cases, 
 nearly all that have occurred in England, a false 
 declaration has been made to the registrar, or a false 
 answer given to the solemn inquiry made by the 
 officiating minister, under the most awful sanction. 
 I was astonished that the honourable and gallant 
 member for Bradford (Colonel Thompson) should 
 think it a sufficient answer to say that the question, 
 in our Prayer Book, is whether the parties know 
 of any impediment by God's law, and that they 
 would not think their relationship to be such. 
 Surely every right-minded man answers a question 
 secundum animum imponentis. Now, the intention of 
 the Church in the question is notorious ; and if a 
 Mahometan should ask me if I w^ere of the true 
 faith, I should not be justified in answering in the 
 affirmative, when I knew that he meant his own 
 faith, because I believe Christianity to be true. But 
 we are not, on the other hand, without very strong 
 evidence of the light in w^hich the alteration is 
 regarded by those who have not broken the law, 
 and who have the deepest interest in this question ; 
 I mean, the great majority of the women of England. 
 A memorial has been presented on behalf of some 
 thousands of the women of England to Her Majesty, 
 deprecating the i)roposed measure. No counter-
 
 16 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 memorial has been heard of. I regret the different 
 view that is taken by society of the moral guilt of 
 man as compared with that of woman, in regard to 
 offences connected with breach of the marriage 
 vow. But surely, sir, this very circumstance gives 
 an additional weight to the opinions of women on 
 such a subject as that now before us ; and I believe 
 that opinion to be yet more decided against the 
 right honourable gentleman's Bill, than can be made 
 manifest by public demonstrations. Women require 
 every protection that religious belief, the force of 
 opinion, and the sanction of law can afford. I 
 protest, therefore, against any tampering with that 
 law which has, indeed, placed the wife's sister in a 
 position of peculiar intimacy with her husband, but 
 has at the same time shielded her from the pecuUar 
 dangers of such a position. 
 
 I have thus, sir, endeavoured to argue this 
 question upon grounds wholly independent of the 
 revealed law of God. I have felt the difficulty of 
 arguing it on any other grounds in this House. The 
 honourable and learned member for Abingdon, 
 (Sir F. Thesiger,) has, in his able speech this 
 morning, expressed a wish that the Church should, 
 in convocation or by other means, express her view 
 of the Levitical Code. But, sir, I feel that no 
 expression of the opinion of the Church would bind 
 those members of this House who reject her 
 authority-. At the same time, I should very 
 
 ' See Appendix B.
 
 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. 17 
 
 inadequately express my own sentiments, if I 
 hesitated to state my own deep and earnest con- 
 viction upon the subject. Before doing so, I must 
 advert to the ver}" unfair course that has been 
 adopted by some unscrupulous advocates of the 
 measure before us. It has been constantly argued 
 that a party only in the Church are opposed to it. 
 And it is evidently wished to create a prejudice 
 against the existing law, by ascribing to its sup- 
 porters views to which a nickname has been 
 attached, by designating them as belonging to a 
 party in the Church of England supposed to lean 
 strongly to the doctrines of the Church of Rome. 
 In short the old " No Popery " cry has been again 
 resorted to. Now, it is a most remarkable fact, that 
 if there be any portion of Scripture, the interpreta- 
 tion of which may be said to be Protestant in its 
 character, as opposed to what we consider the 
 cormptions of the Church of Rome, it is the inter- 
 pretation of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, as being 
 of general, and not merely Jewish obligation ; and of 
 that part of it in particular which relates to the subject 
 before us, as being a distinct prohibition of marriage 
 with a wife's sister. Jewel and Cranmer are both 
 of them explicit on this point : the one affirming 
 that since the marriage with a husband's brother is 
 forbidden (except in the particular case where it 
 is for special reasons enjoined, God's will being 
 always the foundation of all law), the marriage with 
 the wife's sister is by parity of reasoning forbidden 
 also ; and the other having distinctly dechned to
 
 18 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 sanction such a marriage, though much pressed to do 
 so by the favourite Cromwell. And, in saying that 
 this is a Protestant interpretation, I do not abandon 
 my vantage-ground of its being the ancient inter- 
 pretation of our Church before the Reformation. 
 Any one who has looked into the subject, mil see 
 that such marriages were not heard of, or tolerated 
 in the Church until the time of Papal corrup- 
 tions ; and when the right honourable gentleman 
 tells us that no prohibition occurs earlier than the 
 fourth century, I answer by saying, that no such 
 prohibition was needed. All you can show me is 
 that at the first moment of our hearing of any such 
 maiTiage, we hear also of Basil's horror and disgust 
 at it. The Church henceforth prohibited it ; but the 
 Romish Church took upon itself, though continuing 
 the prohibition, to allow Papal dispensations from it 
 — and one of the first, if not the first of such dis- 
 pensations, was granted by Alexander the Sixth — the 
 greatest monster that ever filled the Papal chair, and 
 who lived in incest with his own daughter. Having 
 taken upon itself to dispense with the prohibition, 
 that Church was compelled to hold that the Levi- 
 tical prohibitions were not part of the positive and 
 general law of God, but peculiar to the Jews ; and 
 that the prohibitions of the Church, therefore, were 
 matters of discipline only ; and accordingly they 
 allowed, and still allow, marriage between an uncle 
 and his own niece on dispensation. But the Pro- 
 testant view has always been oj3posed to this ; and 
 the Galilean Church, which in its best days asserted
 
 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. 19 
 
 its freedom from Papal influence and despotism, 
 would not allow these dispensations. The Parlia- 
 ment of Paris had indeed allowed it in one case, 
 which occurred in 1683 ; but in the very remarkable 
 case of the Marquis de Sailly, which lasted several 
 years, and wa^ terminated in 1723, the same Par- 
 liament allowed an appel comme d'abus, at the 
 instance of the collateral heirs, and declared illegiti- 
 mate the children by the wife's sister, notwithstand- 
 ing the marriage was had under a dispensation fi'om 
 the Pope \ It is certainly not a little strange that, 
 whilst those who oppose the change of the law are 
 accused of belonging to a party inclined to Rome, 
 so much reliance should be placed by our opponents 
 on a Romish interpretation of Scripture, eschewed 
 by all Protestants, and that Bishop Wiseman should 
 be the principal witness to prove our Protestant in- 
 terpretation of Scripture to be erroneous. What 
 too will be said of the Kirk of Scotland, which is 
 even more warmly opposed to the Bill than the 
 Church of England ? Is that Kirk Puseyite ? But, 
 sir, it is not a party that objects to this measure. 
 We have heard of 700 clergy having petitioned in 
 favour of this Bill. Why, there are nearly 20,000 
 clergy in England. When we recollect the activity 
 of the agency brought to bear on this measure (of 
 which I wish to say nothing harsh, for those who 
 conscientiously believe the law to be wrong have a 
 right to exert themselves to effect its alteration), 
 
 * See Appendix C. 
 B 2
 
 "20 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 we may well be surprised that the petitions have not 
 been far more numerous. 
 
 To conclude, then, with expressing my own views 
 of the question as regards Divine prohibition. I 
 think that, notwithstanding Bishop Wiseman and 
 the Romish Church, few persons will doubt that the 
 prohibitions in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, what- 
 ever dispute there be as to their terms, were general, 
 and not confined to the Jewish people. We are 
 expressly told that the prohibited unions were 
 abominable in the eyes of God ; that on account of 
 such abominations the land of Canaan, in the 
 forcible words of Scripture, vomited out its inha- 
 bitants. Now, who were those inhabitants ? They 
 were heathens, who had not been taught any peculiar 
 code, but were amenable to a moral code only. We 
 cannot conceive that they would be thus punished 
 for disobeying a law intended for the Jews only, 
 and which they had never heard of. It is plain, 
 then, as I have endeavoured in the previous part of 
 my argument to show, that the offences were moral 
 offences, contraiy to natural no less than to re- 
 vealed religion ; and therefore that the Canaanites 
 were justly punishable for such abominations. It 
 remains only to be seen whether this case of the 
 wife's sister be among the prohibitions. It is not 
 so in words, neither is that of a man's own daughter ; 
 and it is plain that strictly verbal interpretation is 
 not the true key to open the meaning of the passage. 
 On the other hand, marriage with a brother's wife 
 (except in the case I have above referred to) is pro-
 
 THE LAW OF MAKllIAGr,. 21 
 
 hibitcd, and so is the marriage with a woman and her 
 daughter, both of them cases of affinity only. It is 
 upon this ground that the Church has always prohi- 
 bited the marriage with the wife's sister by parity of 
 reasoning. Jurists also, Grotius, Basnage, and Merhn, 
 all lay down the rule that the prohibition of marriages 
 between parties related by affinity extends to the same 
 degrees as that of marriage between parties related by 
 blood. Now% the only doubt that has ever been raised 
 upon the subject has been founded on the 18th verse 
 of the chapter. But for this verse, I apprehend, all 
 Protestant Christians would have been agreed upon 
 the subject. This verse, by forbidding a marriage 
 w^ith a wife's sister in her lifetime, has been thought 
 to lead to the inference that it is allowable after her 
 decease. Now, it is first to be observed, that a sect 
 of the Jews, called Karaites (w^ho followed the literal 
 w'ords of Scripture rather than the glosses of Tal- 
 mudists) , interpreted the w^ords " take a w ife to her 
 sister " in the manner in which it is given in the 
 margin of our Bibles. " One wife to another," for 
 the expression "wife to her sister" is in Hebrew a 
 proverbial expression, meaning, adding one thing to 
 another, and is so applied to joining one curtain to 
 another in the description of the Tabernacle *, and of 
 other inanimate objects in Ezekiel. They held it, 
 therefore, to be a prohibition against polygamy ; and 
 if it be said that this would prove David and Solo- 
 
 * In Exod. xxvi. 3. 5, 6. 17, the expression is so used five 
 times. Ezek. i. 9, 23, and iii. 13.
 
 22 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING 
 
 mon to have broken a divine commandment, the 
 answer is that they clearly did break an express 
 commandment in Deuteronomy, when they "multi- 
 plied to themselves wives." Nevertheless, I would 
 not rest on this interpretation ; still less will I 
 accept the glosses of the Talmudists to which the 
 supporters of the measure refer ; I hold that the 
 Christian interprets God's law, not by the light of 
 Jewish doctors, but by that of the Sermon on the 
 Mount. We hold that the " commandment is ex- 
 ceeding broad," and give it, as the Church has done, 
 its full breadth, not seeking to narrow that w^iich 
 has been the Christian interpretation for centuries, 
 to suit the mind or tone of the present age. The 
 18th verse may, consistently with that interpre- 
 tation, be taken in connexion w^ith the preceding 
 verses, as not annulhng them, but implying a prohi- 
 bition, a fortiori, against polygamy wdth the Avife's 
 sister. To say the least, it is a strange course of 
 interpretation which w^ould construe this special pro- 
 hibition into an inferential permission, where the 
 two verses immediately preceding had forbidden 
 marriage in cases of affinity, one of them being 
 exactly analogous to that in question. 
 
 To my mind, sir, convinced as I am that the pro- 
 hibitions are founded on a general and not a particu- 
 lar law of God, and that the awful penalties de- 
 nounced against the Canaanites are held out as the 
 sanction of that law, it appears that any one who 
 has but a doubt as to the interpretation of the par-
 
 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. 23 
 
 ticular verse in question, will not hesitate to retain 
 the law of England unaltered. Instead of admitting 
 the argument, that we are bound to show a clear 
 prohibition, I say, that where the penalties are so 
 awfully denounced, where the moral feeling of all 
 Christendom, no less than its religious convictions, 
 has, till the last few years, acquiesced in the law as 
 we happily yet hold it, the only safe course of action 
 is to abide by the existing state of things, and not to 
 step into a new path, the commencement, I fear, of 
 a downward course in all that is high and sacred in 
 our social relations. See what inconsistencies there 
 are in the right honourable gentleman's course. 
 Last year he would have you allow the marriage 
 with a wife's niece ; this year, not. Again, by the 
 proposed Bill the Clergy are allowed to adhere to 
 those canons to which they have vowed obedience, 
 and which prohibit these marriages. It would have 
 been very unjust were it otherwise ; but yet in what 
 position are the daughters of members of the Church, 
 whose affections may be entangled, and may then be 
 told, "Your pastor will not marry you. He has a 
 conscientious objection to do so ; and the same law 
 which allows you to marry your sister's husband, 
 allows him to refuse the solemn sanction of the 
 Church to your union?" I tinist it is not yet too 
 late to call upon all thoughtful men, on grounds of 
 public morals no less than upon those of a more 
 sacred character, to oppose this first relaxation of 
 the maiTiagc-code — of a system on which our
 
 24 SPEECH AGAINST ALTERING THE LAW, &C. 
 
 English homes have been founded, and in which 
 may they ever be maintained in their distinguished 
 purity ' ! 
 
 ' See Appendix D.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 The promoters of the Bill have caused an advertisement to 
 be printed in the Times, which I presume was intended to 
 be a contradiction of my statement with reference to the 
 parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster. 
 
 No expense, as I have observed, is spared in " getting 
 up" the case, and the same statement has therefore been 
 printed as a circular, and sent round to members of Parlia- 
 ment and others. 
 
 It purports to be drawn up by a gentleman employed in 
 visiting the poor, and states that he knows four cases by 
 name, of parties who have married their late wife''s sister, in 
 the parish in which I had stated I knew of only one case. 
 I, of course, could only speak of what I knew, and according 
 to the best information I could obtain. I expected that 
 w hat I said would be taken as a challenge by the very active 
 agents on behalf of the Bill, and am glad to find my 
 impression of the extreme paucity of such marriages so 
 remarkably confirmed. With all their diligence they can 
 only find four cases in a pauper population of tweniT/sia; thou- 
 sand at least. The same gentleman, however, adds that, in 
 the course of his visiting the poor, he finds " many cases " 
 of persons living with their late wife's sister ; and that some 
 of such })ersons have complained to him of the law which 
 compels them to live in sin. Now, in the first place, I must
 
 26 APPENDIX. 
 
 here repeat that I set no value on vague statements. I have 
 received a letter from a Clergyman in the Potteries, telling 
 me that I am quite wrong in my views, for he knows of 
 " many such cases " among the poor, and married a couple 
 himself. I answered the letter by stating that I accepted 
 the one case of which he had personal knowledge, but that T 
 must be allowed to place no reliance on the "many cases ;" 
 but I should, however, feel greatly obliged by his sitting 
 down and endeavouring to reckon up any cases of which he 
 had actual knowledge, for that I only desired to ascertain 
 the truth. To this I received no reply. To return, how- 
 ever, to Westminster. Our parish is unfortunately one 
 in which the lowest thieves and persons of most disor- 
 derly character congregate ; many of them in wretched 
 lodging-houses, where little or no decency can be expected. 
 There are consequently numerous cases of concubinage, and 
 when any benevolent person (such as the author of the 
 statement that has been advertized) visits persons living in 
 this state, they are very anxious to palliate their course of 
 life. I am not surprised, therefore, at the complaints made 
 by them of the state of the law as preventing their marriage, 
 though I should doubt whether the alleged relationship 
 between them be not, in many of such cases, fictitious, and 
 invented as an excuse for their not being married. How- 
 ever, the numbers not being given, I cannot set much value 
 on this evidence. From my experience of impressions, as 
 contrasted with statistical facts, I usually regard " many "" 
 as meaning at most two or three instances. 
 
 B. 
 
 The state of our law is singularly misunderstood, not only 
 " out of doors," but by many members of Parliament. It 
 is supposed that because the marriage with a wife's sister 
 was voidable only, and not void until Lord Lyndhursfs Act, 
 there was a species of half sanction to such unions. Now,
 
 APPENDIX. 27 
 
 the fact is, that no such marriage was ever in the smallest 
 degree sanctioned ; but the Courts of Common Law would 
 not allow any proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court to set 
 them aside after the death of either party, so that after the 
 death of husband or wife there was no mode of obtaining a 
 judicial decision, and of course all marriages actually 
 solemnized are good till such sentence is given. The best 
 mode of makine; this understood is to call attention to the 
 case of marriage with a man"'s own sister or mothei*, being in 
 precisely the same position, and in the same sense voidable 
 only, not void. 
 
 Another prevalent error is the assumption that the law, 
 until the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, rested entirely 
 on ecclesiastical interpretations of Scripture. Now, there 
 has ever been a remarkable unanimity of the lay and clerical 
 interpretation of the 18th chapter of Leviticus. For, in con- 
 sequence of the o2nd Henry VIIL, c. 38, having enacted, 
 " That no reservation or prohibition, God''s law except, shall 
 trouble or impeach any marriage without the Levitical 
 degrees," the Courts of Common Law, being the proper 
 courts to determine on the construction of a statute, were 
 in several cases called upon to prohibit proceedings in the 
 Ecclesiastical Courts for invalidating marriages, on the 
 ground that such marriages were within the saving of the 
 Act of Parliament. Amongst other such cases that of 
 marriage with a deceased wife's sister was fully argued in 
 Hill V. Good, Vaugh. 302; and the Court determined, as it 
 has repeatedly done since, down to the present day, that 
 this marriage is not within the meaning of the Act of 
 Henry VIIL, and that it is within the Levitical degrees. 
 There is no point, therefore, on which there has been more 
 complete unanimity of opinion on the part of both the lay 
 and Ecclesiastical Courts. 
 
 With regard to the Levitical degrees, it is a favourite 
 argument that the marriage in question involves no union of
 
 28 APPENDIX. 
 
 blood relations. Now a stepmother is not a blood relation ; 
 yet St. Paul tells us that incestuous intercourse with a step- 
 mother was repugnant even to heathen morals. And it is 
 remarkable that the express prohibitions in Leviticus extend 
 to six blood relations, and to nine who are related by 
 affinity only. 
 
 0. 
 
 This case of the Marquis de Sailly is a curious instance 
 of the evils attendant on the Romish theory of dispensations. 
 The Council of Trent expressly forbade the payment of any 
 fees for such dispensations in regard to marriage ; but in 
 the course of the proceedings it appears that the Marquis 
 applied in vain for eleven years to one Pope for a dispensa- 
 tion, but obtained it from his successor on payment of a fee 
 of 20,000 livres. The amount of this fee was relied on by 
 Counsel, as showing that it was an actual dispensation ; in 
 answer to an allegation of those who supported the marriage, 
 that in fact there had never been an actual union with the 
 first wife, and that it was only for the sake of appearances 
 that a dispensation was asked for ; the argument being that, 
 in the latter case, not more than 1200 livres would have 
 been required as a fee. 
 
 It may here be observed that, by the very fact of granting 
 dispensations, the Church of Rome continues to bear testi- 
 mony to the general voice of Christendom against such mar- 
 riages, the dispensation proving their illegality. Our 
 Reformed Church, no less than the Gallican Church, repu- 
 diates this dispensing abuse. 
 
 D. 
 
 If I had not been limited in regard to time, I should have 
 wished to expose the extreme danger of allowing a breach 
 of the law to be an argument in favour of its repeal, where 
 the subject-matter of the law is the social fabric itself. I 
 can understand the argument that frequent smuggling is a
 
 APPENDIX. 29 
 
 proof tliat you have erred in your fiscal arrangements, or 
 that the frequent breaches of the game-la\AS show their un- 
 soundness. But no one, except perhaps a Communist, 
 would say that the frequent occurrence of theft or forgery 
 in a highly civilized country, is a ground for legalizing such 
 modes of plunder. 
 
 It is obvious that the relaxation of the law of divorce may 
 be, and if this Bill pass probably will be, supported by the 
 same species of reasoning. We do not allow the wife to 
 obtain a divorce for cruelty. Some active agents could 
 readily furnish the statistics of adultery ; in many cases the 
 crime has been occasioned by the maltreatment of the wife 
 by her husband. Here we should be told that Prussia, nay, 
 even Scotland, allows of a more relaxed code of divorce than 
 our own ; therefore, such relaxation cannot be against 
 Scripture, and the onus of proving it to be wrong lies upon 
 its opponents. Several German authors and authoresses (!) 
 have lately advocated what they call " the emancipation of 
 the flesh," or an abolition of all the restraints of marriage. 
 
 I am aware that this line of argument, namely, the danger 
 of consequences, is of no value to prove your case. But, if 
 you reduce the question to a doubt, it is a legitimate line of 
 argument to insist on standing upon the safe side. 
 
 The strangest of the devices resorted to by the supporters 
 of the Bill has been an attempt to raise the cry of " Reli- 
 gious Liberty." Suppose a sect to arise which shall claim a 
 right to resort to polygamy, or another which shall deny the 
 power of the State to insist on marriage at all, will it be 
 persecution to retain marriage, or to restrain it to one wife 
 or one husband ? 
 
 It is much to be lamented that first principles, either of 
 morals or of government, should ever come into discussion ; 
 and assuredly a weaker ground was never taken for so 
 hazardous a course, as the almost imaginary hardship of a 
 man being restricted from marrying one or two individuals
 
 30 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 out of the whole female community. The only alleged 
 grievance indeed has been that you deprive a man of the 
 power of securing the aunt [as the best guardian of his 
 orphan family. Mr. Roebuck happily observed that you do 
 not improve her position in this respect by making her a 
 stepmother. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Gilbert & Rivinoton, Printers, St. John's Square, London.
 
 ,1 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 *-: •. h