66 LORD CAMPBELL'S OPINION OF THEIR EFFECTS. 149 nity and weight against such marriages. Unwilling as I am unduly to extend this work, I cannot withhold the following extracts from the speech of one having such opportunities of judging, and who cannot be charged with theological prejudices. His Lordship denounced the agitation on this subject, begun and carried on by "those who had violated the law," and purely for personal interest," and who, in order to obtain the support of numbers, persuaded persons to violate the law by denying its existence. Among other things, Lord Campbell said, “It had already been shown that in a great majority of instances the children must be sufferers, because in a great majority of instances they would be deprived of the tender care of an aunt, which they now enjoyed; or, in cases in which marriage was to take place between the widower and the deceased wife's sister, they must be deprived of the care and attention of that near relation, because, from that time forth, if the bill passed, it would be utterly impossible for the sister of the deceased wife to remain under the same roof with the widower. (Hear, hear). . . . . Could they have the benefit of the purity of domestic life unless that connection were looked upon with abhorrence, as contrary to the law of God and the law of man? It was only by such a feeling being instilled into the mind, until it became a sort of instinct in all who came within its operation, that they could have the full benefit of that purity, peace, and happiness of domestic life which they now enjoyed. (Hear, hear). It was one of the melancholy facts that, if passed, this would not be a final bill. Jealousy and alarm would be introduced into every family in England. . . . . These marriages (such of them as had been contracted) had been contracted in open violation of the law, and the parties were living in a state of concubinage, and nothing better. They knew well that they were living in that state. They had defied the law; their children were illegitimate; and although the legislature had interfered to sanction what had been done in ignorance, never until now had it been proposed to render valid marriages contracted in open violation of the law." Lord Brougham concurred in holding such marriages to be condemned by Scripture, contrary to the law of the land, and strongly condemned on grounds of expediency. The bill proposed to be passed on the occasion, to legalise such marriages, was rejected, on the second reading, by 50 to 16. This was in Feb. 1851. In a subsequent discussion, on the presentation of a petition to the House of Lords by Lord St Germans for the London Association, both Lords Lyndhurst and Campbell declared-contrary to the unceasing and unblushing assertions of interested parties, and these even repeated in the article of the Edinburgh Review for April 1853, and on the authority of Mr Binney-that the law of England on the lawfulness of such marriages, as to the degrees prohibited, was the very same before the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Bill that it is now. Lord Campbell took occasion to give the following most important opinion in regard to parties who went abroad to marry and evade the law, not being domiciled abroad :"Such parties were English subjects, and England had a right to judge their acts all over the world. This country could not deal with the acts of foreigners without its territory, but it might with the acts of foreigners within its territory, and with the acts of its own subjects all over the globe; and the law which existed here against incestuous marriages would, in the case of British subjects, render these marriages void wherever they were con 150 BISHOP OF EXETER ON COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. tracted." He cautioned all persons against going into foreign countries with the idea of evading the law of England. It is impossible to mark with too severe condemnation the disgraceful conduct of parties who take upon them, by every possible plan and influence, to persuade men and women to enter into this relation, by administering encouragement to indulge their passions, or, if you will, their affections, at so serious risks, social and moral, to themselves and others, by falsifying the law, or even rendering it doubtful; and this, too, for the base purpose of multiplying cases to concuss the legislature into a change of the law. The country and the cause of religion and morality owe much to such a man as Lord Campbell, who, as a peer and a judge, employs his high position to administer the rebuke and warning which such proceedings merit. It is impossible, in a work of this kind, to pass by without a few remarks the "First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the State and Operation of the Law of Marriage," &c., in this country, in 1847. Of this Report, the Bishop of Exeter, in his able speech in the House of Lords already referred to, said:- "So far as related to the individuals who composed the Commission, he (the Bishop of Exeter) never saw a report more entitled to respect; but would not admit that the contents of that report were equally entitled to respect. Nay, he would say, that so far as the contents of that report were concerned, he had never seen one more totally unworthy of respect. He did not charge those persons of high character who composed the Commission with purposed unfairness. Of that he believed them incapable; but he would say that they had allowed their prepossessions to influence the whole tone of their report. He had shown one instance of the partiality of these Commissioners ;here was another. The Report said, 'We find the evidence that marriages of this kind are permitted in nearly all the Continental States of Europe.' Now, he was sorry to be obliged to remark, that they not only introduced into their report everything favourable to their preconceived views, but that in making this assertion, they had said something of the States of Switzerland in direct contradiction to their own evidence. One of their witnesses said, that of the twenty-two cantons of Switzerland, there was only one where he knew of these marriages being permitted.* But this is not In regard to Switzerland, the Commissioners report as follows:-" Protestant states on the Continent of Europe, with the exception of some of the cantons of Switzerland, permit these marriages to be solemnised by dispensation or license under ecclesiastical or civil authority." Now, the fact regarding Switzerland is stated by A. Bach, Esq., a German jurisconsult practising in this country, and one of their own witnesses. He transmitted an extract of a letter from a professional friend in Lausanne, which is given in the Appendix to the Report, as follows:-"I believe I may say with certainty, that the law only of one canton, that of Neufchatel, permits marriage with a deceased wife's sister, which canton is a principality of the crown of Prussia. I believe in all the other cantons such marriages are prohibited. No doubt such is the law in the Canton de Vaud and the Canton de Geneva. No dispensation can be granted." In the body of Mr Bach's evidence there is the following curious statement :-" 981. In the kingdom of Hanover, an uncle cannot marry his niece; 982, in some parts of Germany he can? In some parts he can. In Prussia such a marriage is permitted; but marriage with an aunt older in years is only permitted under a dispensation on very special grounds; but it is not easily granted. It is, however, an infringement upon the divine precepts; it is a permissive law, bad in its nature, which I would not hold up as an example.' "An infringement on the divine precepts" does not startle the Prussians. What is the value of their example? Their "dispensation " is only proof that they knowingly violate the law of God. Mr Bach states that popular feeling is not unfavourable to such marriages on the Continent,-yet adds, "they are of rare occurrence." Why? I presume EVIDENCE OF DR COX AND MR HATCHARD. 151 all-Russia was ignored in the report, except in an after allusion to that country in connection with the Greek Church." The Bishop deals with more of it in the same slashing way. Any one who has perused this Report knows that the Bishop has not applied too strong language in its condemnation. The character of the evidence on so grave a subject is, in many instances, most discreditable. Even in the cases where one would have expected the greatest caution, there is very unwarrantable rashness. Grave divines, in several instances, commence their evidence by declaring that they were ignorant of the whole subject, until they had been requested to give evidence by the parties interested. In this respect, at least, their evidence proves that their witnessing is true." They soon prove that they do not know the very first principles on which the argument has in all ages been made to rest. Some of them, such as Dr Cox, in an easy off-handed manner, reject the whole Old Testament authority on the subject in the slump. And yet the Commissioners, unwilling to lose the benefit of Dr Cox's name, proceed to question him as to the bearings of the particular passages of the Levitical law. After his answer, ignoring the authority of the Levitical law, the following questions and answers are curious enough 66 : "847. That answer is given upon the presumption, as you have stated, that the Levitical law would not be binding upon Christians; but what would be your construction of those parts of the Levitical law to which you have referred? Do you think that the true construction of them would be held to prohibit a marriage with a deceased wife's sister? I should think not, according to the 25th chapter of Deuteronomy, and 5th verse, where it is enjoined!" This witness, in this exceptional case, destroys at one sweep the very law-Lev. xviii. 16-to which it is an exception, and an exception in one particular point only, viz.-where there was no child. But, as he declares in his next answer that he was "not aware that there was any prohibition of the kind" "in the early Christian Church," so he may have laboured under the same happy ignorance as to Leviticus xviii. 16. Of what earthly use can evidence of this kind be in the eyes of any honest, intelligent man? : The evidence of another witness as to the Scripture argument betrays no less ignorance of its real ground, as maintained by the Church in every age. The Rev. John Hatchard is examined :—“ 515. You have stated you are of opinion that, theologically speaking, there is no prohibition of these marriages in Holy Writ? Yes, I say that calmly and advisedly. 516. Do you apprehend that, at an early period of Christianity, a construction was put by the Church upon any passages of Scripture, to the effect that such marriages ought not to be allowed? Unquestionably. I believe that the general construction of the Church, and of commentators, has been in opposition to such marriages, founded on what I humbly believe to be a mistaken view of the passage in the 18th of Leviticus, and the 18th verse." If the actual knowledge of this gentleman had been equal to his calmbecause it is felt that they are wrong. Mr Bach is asked,-"992. What is the principle in your judgment upon which, in cases where dispensation is granted as a matter of course, it is still thought necessary to keep up the law requiring dispensation? That is rather a difficult question." No doubt of it. But it is instructive. There is no sound principle in it, as Mr Bach proceeds to state. It is, also, what he does not state, a proof of the remaining sense of moral wrong in the transaction. Mr Bach feels and declares that the existence of prohibitory laws gives "the stamp of moral wrong " to such marriages. Whatever be his opinion of their propriety, this is the reason of their existence, viz., that there is felt to be a moral wrong in such marriages. 152 EVIDENCE OF REV. MR GARBETT AND OTHERS. ness and confidence, he would certainly not have made any such affirmation. He would have told that the opinions of the Church, and of the commentators generally, was founded on very different passages, though they held that Lev. xviii. 18 did not affect them, but strengthened their opinion. This gentleman says he has looked at the question, "in all its bearings, very seriously, very minutely, and very recently;" and yet, from beginning to end of his evidence, he never even glances at Lev. xviii. 16, or at the real grounds of the Scripture argument at all. Yet his is one of the list of "Facts and Opinions" circulated, with others equally worthless, in the fly leaves of the London Association, with the view of settling a great Scripture argument. 66 The evidence of the Rev. John Garbett is of a similar description. He refers only to Lev. xviii. 18; and the opinion of the commentators," according to him, is, that there is no Scripture prohibition of such marriages. But we should never have done, if we took up all the cases of a kind as little trustworthy, which occur in this Report. Were there not such evidence as that of the Rev. Archdeacon Hale, Dr Pusey, and some others, one would be led, from some of the instances now referred to, to conclude, that the clergy in England, both Established and Dissenting, were sadly deficient in theological and literary training. By the way, one of the gross frauds practised in the publications of the London Association is, to take some incidental opinion on some one point of discussion, and then to exhibit it as the opinions of the parties on the very point at issue itself. Thus we have both Patrick, Archdeacon Hale, Calvin, and others dealt with; so that the ordinary reader of these fly leaves would believe them to be hollow in favour of, instead of being hollow against such marriages. In this way, no ordinary reader can possibly know the truth; and the opinions of society are thus attempted to be influenced by a system of gross Jesuitical perversion and fraud. These are strong expressions. We not only use them, however, in the language of one of their authorities, "calmly and advisedly," but we have made them good. The said Association have published no less than fifty-one pretended facts, and about one hundred and eighty alleged opinions of as many persons, and no human being could discover, from their perusal, that there are such texts as Lev. xviii. 16, and xx. 21, in existence. In only two does there seem an allusion to Leviticus xviii. 16, while the reference in one is erroneously given as Lev. xviii. 6, and the other does not refer to Lev. xviii. I have carefully looked over a publication of theirs, containing a large collection of speeches, pamphlets, opinions, and answers, by noble and learned lords, bishops, divines, and lawyers-the collection bearing on the title-page to be the "sixth thousand"—and I have not been able to discover a single reference to Lev. xviii. 16, or xx. 21, and yet these are the texts on which their opponents mainly rest the controversy. Nothing in "James's Corruption of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, for maintenance of Popery," can surpass this discreditable attempt to hide and pervert the truth. Some of the witnesses give certain criitcal opinions on passages of Scripture, because they cannot otherwise make these passages square with their own assumed opinions on the point. A large class of witnesses are anonyThey are persons who have been involved by their own passions in unlawful connections; and they come forth, with most pathetic and sentimental declarations of the hardships of their condition, of the tender mous. CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE OF OTHERS. 153 requests of dying wives, and of the benefit to tender children, who, in all probability, would have been as carefully attended to without violation either of the law of the land or of the laws of God. Some of them have not even the pretence of children in the case at all. Some of these witnesses formed their connections at the advanced age of sixty! Others were arrived at the age which is called, in ordinary matters, "the age of discretion;" though there are some weighty proverbs, in Scotland at least, to excite serious doubt if there is much discretion at such an age in matters of this sort. Some formed the connection because there was a sister-in-law's fortune in the scale. Another class of witnesses are barristers and students-at-law, who, of course, had little stated employment otherwise, and were employed by parties interested in the issue to go forth over towns and districts of the country-some of them the worst of our sea-ports and manufacturing districts-to cater for cases. When cases cannot be got at directly, some of these gentlemen do their best to get hearsay evidence, by the most curious patience and humble inquiries. Some of these cases, as in one managed by Mr Brotherton, are those of persons who, when they found they could not lawfully marry, not only lived in sin, but committed atrocious crimes to conceal their shame; and such things are paraded, to the scandal of England, as proofs of the necessity of changing the law. The Rev. N. C. Jenkins gives as a proof of the same necessity the case of a man who had married "three sisters in succession." The Rev. Mr Binney (998), for the same purpose, details, with considerable eloquence, the case of a brother minister who formed an attachment to the sister of his deceased wife; and, unhappily the law of 1836 passed, inopportunely for him, to make such marriages void to all intents and purposes, though the law held them void before, and prevented their marriage; and Mr Binney gravely advises him to evade the law of his country, and live in the teeth of it. He says:-"They cannot marry; he will not marry. He is an extremely virtuous man-extremely conscientious-morbidly so. I wanted him to go out of the country and get married, and endeavoured to bring the matter to bear in that way, but he would not do it; very properly, perhaps, (!) because he thought it was not right to go out of the country in order to break the laws of the country, and then to return and live in that violation." Most ministers of the gospel, it is to be hoped, think the same thing, without any perhaps" in the case; and, moreover, will doubt the fitness of any man, who has any doubt on the subject, to give a decision on questions of moral law and social propriety. These gentlemen reason of such attachments as if they were the results of blind fate, and as if men could neither fail to form them, nor avoid the consequences if they would, and deserve the sympathy of all humane men and women. Of some hired agents of the party whom we could name, the country has by this time of day obtained knowledge enough to teach us a lesson of caution. The whole movement originated with wealthy parties, who had already violated the law, and was carried on by the agency of professional men, hired to organise and carry it out. They proceeded in regular form to stir the public mind in the usual way-first by a pamphlet, and then by the usual appropriate appliances through the press and otherwise. They tell us that they took means to secure the correctness of their statistics. Correct statistics in such a case were impossible. Mere cases of such marriages could prove nothing but their own existence. The same operations and their results, 66 |