Anon., Esq. November 19, 1847. an old friend of mine, and she, knowing my wife before I had married her, they called upon me. I immediately wrote to the gentlemen, "Your wife appears to have called at my house, not knowing the step I have taken. I know enough of the world, to know that some persons would not call under the circumstances, as I have married my wife's sister; and therefore I shall not consider you as at all bound by your wife having called, unless you come with her." On the following Sunday the gentleman called. I have always avowed what I have done, and I have never found any difference made in society on account of it. 268. You have never found any person shrink from your society on that account?-Never. And further, when I came home from Altona, I sent the cards round with "Mr. and Mrs. and enclosed a card of my present wife's, with her maiden name, that everybody should clearly understand whom I had married: that they should not come and visit me supposing I had married anybody else. 269. Did your former acquaintance generally send cards in return?—Yes; everybody I had sent cards to did so. 271. Does the clergyman there visit you?—Yes. He has dined with me, and I was at an evening party at his house last week. 272. Who is the clergyman of your parish ?—Mr. 273. Has your wife, as far as you are aware, retained all her friends that she had before her marriage?—I think all of them; and in one or two instances parties called who had not been previously visiting acquaintance; one particularly. A lady, who was the daughter of an old friend of mine, but, from circumstances, we had not kept up a connexion, and when she heard that we were married, she came and called upon us. I had a very pleasant thing with my own children. When I told my girls that I was going to take the step, they said, "We shall be very happy about it, for we shall be very glad to change the name of aunty' for 6 mamma. 999 274. Are there are any children by the second marriage?—Not any. Edward R. Rice, November 30, 1847. 30th NOVEMBER, 1847. The Right Hon. STEPHEN LUSHINGTON, D.C.L., in the Chair. Edward Royd Rice, Esq., M.P. 275. You are member for Dover ?—Yes. 276. Have the goodness to state whether you did not marry a sister of the first Lady George Hill? Yes, I did. 277. What was her name?-Elizabeth Knight. 278. The first Lady George Hill is deceased?-Yes. Her name was Cassandra Jane Knight. 279. Since that period Lord George Hill has contracted a second marriage with her sister? Yes; Louisa Knight. 280. Where was that marriage solemnized?-In Denmark. 281. When?-In May last. 282. Was any objection to that second marriage raised by the father or friends of the lady?—None whatever. With reference to that marriage, I can state that I had yesterday a conversation with Mr. Knight, the father, on the subject, and he showed me the copy of the certificate then given to the party by the clergyman; and he said that one of his reasons for wishing the marriage to be solemnized abroad was, that it should be with all possible publicity; that in this country, under the present doubtful state of the law, there must have been a certain degree of concealment. I had several conversations with Lord George Hill previously. With regard to a licence, he felt, and I felt too, that there are words in that licence that he would not have liked to use: such as, that there was no legal impediment. Now, looking at the doubtful state of the law, he would not have liked to take a licence under those circumstances; and even by banns, as the banns are published in London in many cases; they are hurried over where there are a great number of names, and there is a certain degree of concealment as far as the clergyman is concerned. He perhaps asks no questions; but you feel that if the clergyman asked any questions about the parties, he might, in the present state of the law, make an objection to the marriage. It was, therefore, thought that it would be a matter of a. greater publicity its being done abroad. They had a licence, I believe, from the King of Denmark; I do not know why a licence is necessary. They also required from Mr. Knight, before the marriage could be solemnized, certificates of the baptism, of the vaccination, and of the confirmation of both parties, and a certificate of the approbation of her father. I witnessed these certificates, and they were all sent over before the marriage was allowed to take place. After the ceremony, the clergyman delivered an extempore sermon. He was quite aware of the circumstances of the case; he was a Protestant clergyman. The marriage certificate was signed by the Chargé d'Affaires, who was present. 283. The object of the parties was to have the marriage performed with as much solemnity and publicity as possible?—Yes. 284. You yourself entertained no objection to the marriage?—None in the world. I may mention that Mrs. Rice and Lady Knatchbull, the only other married sisters, perfectly approved of it; and if it had taken place in this country Mrs. Rice would have been present; as it was, Lady George Hill was accompanied by -, her aunt, and by Captain Knight, her brother. 285. With respect to the family of Lord George Hill, do you know whether they were opposed to the marriage, or whether they approved of it?-I had frequent conversations with Lord Marcus Hill, and I can answer that he approved of it; indeed, he intended to have come here to-day to state his concurrence, but he has been prevented by an attack of influenza; and before coming here for that purpose, though he was himself fully aware of the feelings of the other members of the family, he thought it right to write to Lord Sandys, and to Lord and Lady Downshire, and I have a note from him enclosing a note from Lord Sandys, which was written, I presume, for this purpose. It is dated Umbersley Court, 22nd November, 1847. He says, "I have no hesitation in saying that I shall receive with the greatest pleasure George and his wife whenever they like to come here, and I have no doubt that Lord and Lady Downshire will do the same." 286. Then from your conversations with Lord Marcus Hill, you verily believe that the Downshire family approve of this marriage?-Certainly; Lord Marcus Hill says that in the event of his not being able to come here to-day (which I presume is the case), he sends me Lord Sandys' recent letter, fully concurred in, as I can state, by Lord and Lady Downshire, Lady Marcus Hill, myself, and Lord Edwin Hill. My opinion can be of little value, but I certainly entertain a very strong opinion from what I have observed, for years, of the situation of Lord George Hill's family with regard to his children. His children were all young; one was but a baby. 287. What family had he by his first wife?—He had four children. She died in childbirth of the last. 288. Did the sister take the care of the children ?-The sister, from a week after the death of Lady George Hill, had the entire care of the children. 289. Had she resided with them before her sister's death ?—No, I cannot say that; I know that they were a great deal at Godmersham. 290. You say that she had the care of the children after her sister's death. Where had she the care of them?-Chiefly at Godmersham. Their home was at Godmersham, her father's house, but she went to Ireland once or twice with Lord George Hill and his family, when he was obliged to go there, and staid for some time. Latterly, the last year or two, the children were almost entirely at Godmersham, and she was entirely devoted to them. 291. About what age is Lady George Hill?-About 41, I should think. 292. Mr. Knight lives at Godmersham, in Kent ?—Yes. 293. He is a gentleman of good property in that county?—Yes; both in Kent and in Hampshire. 294. Does he act as a magistrate in that county ?—Yes. 295. Are you aware of any other case of a marriage within those degrees in Mr. Knight's family?—Yes; Mr. Knight's brother, married his wife's sister under similar circum stances. 296. That was some years ago?-It was a good many years ago. I suppose 20 or 30 years ago. Mr. Knight, whom I had a conversation with recently, said that before the marriage of his daughter with Lord George Hill he had had frequent conversations with his brother, and that he had distinctly stated to him that they had never met with the slightest shyness from any party; that he and his wife had always been received in the same way as if there had been no doubt as to the legality of the marriage. 297. That marriage was, of course, one of those that were rendered valid by the same Act which renders the present marriages invalid?-Yes. 298. Are you aware whether Lord George Hill took any legal opinions with respect to the marriage abroad and the effect of it ?-No. I do not think he did. I think there was a gentleman whose opinion he consulted, I think he was a barrister, who had frequent communications with him, but whose name I am not prepared to state now, but I do not think he took any satisfactory legal opinion. I think the view which I took, and which Mr. Knight took, and which was generally taken by the family was, that the law, as it is now, is in a very doubtful state; that it would not have warranted their being married in this country, but that it would warrant their being married abroad, where it was considered perfectly legal. 299. So far from its being any part of their object to conceal the marriage from their friends and relations the object of going abroad was to render it more public and more solemn?—Yes; I believe it was in consequence of communications which Lord George Hill or Lord Marcus Hill, or both of them, had with the Danish Ambassador as to the state of the law in that country; and, as I stated before, Lady George Hill was accompanied by her aunt, and also by her brother, Captain Knight. Perhaps it is desirable that I should say that I appear here as representing the feelings and opinions of Mr. Knight. When I left him yesterday he told me distinctly that it would have been his wish, and he would have been quite ready to come before the Commissioners except for his age and state of his health, which rendered it inconvenient for him to do so. I should like also to mention the great attention which the present Lady George Hill paid to the education of the children. Their education has been of a most strictly religious nature. I never saw children better educated or more carefully. She has been a mother to them, their nurse and governess were entirely under her control, and she devoted herself entirely to them; that was felt as an additional reason for the marriage, and Lord George Hill necessarily wishing now to reside in Ireland, either she must have been separated from the children at an age when, for the eldest daughter, it was particularly desirable that she should have the care of them, or else that this marriage should take place. I do not think that Mr. Knight would have allowed her to go to Ireland after the question had once been raised of their being married. When once that question was raised and it was thought desirable that they should marry, I think after that she must either have continued to reside in her father's family and been separated from the children, or else she must have done as she has done, married Lord George Hill and gone and lived with the children as their mother. Edward R. Rice, November 30, 1847. Lord A. M. C. Hill, M.P. December 8, 1847. The Hon. and Rev. A. P. Percival. November 23, 1847. 8th DECEMBER, 1847. Right Hon. STEPHEN LUSHINGTON, D.C.L., in the Chair. Lord Arthur Marcus Cecil Hill, M.P. 300. You are cognizant of the marriage of your brother with the sister of his first wife?— I am. 301. Was that marriage approved of by his relations?-Under the circumstances it was by those with whom I have held communication. 302. By yourself?-By myself and my wife: we were privy to it. Long before it took place I had thought it was the most desirable thing that could occur under similar circum stances. 303. And the other branches of your family approved of it?-Lord and Lady Downshire, as soon as it happened, asked them immediately to their house in Hanover-square. Lord Edwin Hill is likewise of opinion that it was the best thing that could be done. My own brother, Lord Sandys, feels the same. I believe that Mr. Rice has already told the Commissioners the facts of the case; but I may just mention that Lord George's circumstances were these. Before his first wife's death he had acquired his Irish property, Gweedore: he was there with all his family. He intended to occupy a residence, which he had likewise purchased, within some miles of his Gweedore property. By the death of his wife (who died in child-birth) all his plans were disturbed, and he, in consequence, removed to his father-in-law's in Kent. Mr. Knight, of Godmersham. Miss Louisa Knight, now Lady George Hill, was the next sister to the late Lady George. She had always lived upon the most affectionate terms with her sister; and, upon the removal of the children to Godmersham, she devoted herself entirely to the care of them. This endured for five years; in the course of which she went over once, if not twice, to Ireland with Lord George and the children, and remained there two or three months. Mr. Knight, I believe, is now between eighty-one and eighty-two; and the consideration arose, what would be the condition of those children if, upon his death, they were thrown entirely upon their father. In a conversation which I had with my brother, Lord George, he said, that it would be quite impossible to separate them from their aunt, who had been a second mother to them; and he said, the moment that he had ascertained that Mr. Knight had no disinclination, but, on the contrary, very much wished the marriage to take place, he resolved to take a step which would enable him to take his children over to Ireland to reside there, and to attend, as he was most anxious to do, to his property. That, I believe, was the sole cause of his determination. They had been acquainted 20 years nearly, and Lady G. is one or two and forty now. 304. Are Lord and Lady George Hill now residing near Gweedore ?-Yes, within 15 or 16 miles of Gweedore, at his own property. 305. As far as you know, have they been received in society upon the same footing since their marriage as before?-I have no reason to doubt it. I do not believe there is much society in their immediate neighbourhood. As soon as they returned from the continent they came to London, and went over to Ireland: he was very anxious to get there for his local objects. In regard to the reception, generally, given to my brother and sister, upon their return from Altona, I may add, that Lord Winchelsea, who is Mr. Knight's neighbour, near Godmersham, invited them to Eastwell Park, and that other neighbours called upon her. Since their return to Ireland, every one, high and low, have been to see her, and many have expressed their strong approbation of their union-such as Lady Bangor, Mr. and Lady Helena Stewart, Sir James and Lady Stewart, Rev. Dr. and Mrs. Kingsmill, Rev. Mr. Atkins, Rev. Dr. and Lady Ann Hastings, Mr. Batt, Mrs. Otway, and many others; the common people approving highly, and some saying how wise George had been not to bring a stranger into his family. 306. In your opinion would Lord George have been able to have had the advantage of his present wife's care for his children if he had not married her?—I think it is very doubtful. Certainly, if Mr. Knight's life was prolonged, my impression is, that he would not have liked his daughter to have gone back to Ireland. 307. He would have objected, in your opinion, to his daughter going permanently to reside with Lord George Hill, in Ireland, she being unmarried?-Certainly, I believe so. 23rd NOVEMBER, 1847. The Right Hon. STEPHEN LUSHINGTON, D.C.L., in the Chair. The Hon. and Rev. Arthur Philip Percival. 308. You are a clergyman of the Church of England?—I am. 309. You have paid some attention to the subject of marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity?-I have. 310. Have the kindness to state to the Commissioners whether it is your opinion that marriages of that description are prohibited by Holy Writ?-Decidedly. 311. Will you be pleased to state to what part of Holy Writ you would refer, as substantiating your view?—I can explain myself so much better on paper than by word of mouth, that I committed the chief part of what I have to say to writing; and it is contained in the memorial which I have addressed to the Commissioners. But, in answer to the question, I would say that there are two ways of ascertaining the sense of Holy Scripture: one, by the letter of the Scripture as it stands; the other, by the testimony, borne by the Church, of the sense in which it has understood that letter. According to either, and both of those ways of understanding the Scriptures, I consider these marriages to be forbidden. I will take the last The Hon. and Rev. first-the testimony of the Church borne against these marriages. That testimony is, as far as A. P. Percival. I can ascertain, universal in time and country. It corresponds with the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. I know of no Church in any time, or any country, which has ever sanctioned these marriages, excepting the corrupt usage of the Church of Rome, which has dared to grant dispensations from the written law of God. 312. Do you found the opinion which you have now expressed upon the usages of the Church in very early times?-I do. 313. And upon what you believe to be authentic evidence of the existence of that usage?—I do. The object of the Church appears to have been to guard against the temptations to which human flesh is subject, by reason of the formation of man and woman, which the Creator has ordained. It is natural and necessary, according to the constitution of human nature, that man and woman should have certain desires to approximate, which desires they will naturally proceed to accomplish, except under powerful restraints. The temptations and opportunities for gratifying those passions, which the intimate relationship subsisting between a man and his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, affords, are very great. But with a view to show that it is not merely against the particular combination of circumstances that the Church has desired a. to guard, I am able to show that in the early times of Christianity, in all countries, this prohibition extended, not merely to actual sisters-in-law, but took every relation which could be looked upon at all in the light of a sister, whether by adoption, by sponsorship, or in any other way. This I can show, from the canons received in the Western and Eastern Churches. 314. You have said that the prohibition extended to every relation in the light of sister, whether by adoption or sponsorship; by adoption, do you mean where a person, an utter stranger in blood, has been adopted by the father and mother?—I do. 315. By sponsorship, what do you mean?-By sponsorship, I mean that the godson of any man or woman was prohibited from marrying the daughter of that man or woman. 316. Do you entertain the opinion yourself, that such marriages as you have now mentioned, namely, marriages by adoption or sponsorship, are, and ought to be prohibited ?—If my answer to that would at all determine the cause before you, I am bound to give an answer, if not, I would request to be excused. 317. Will you proceed with your proofs of the existence of this prohibition in the early times of Christianity?--I will quote a portion of that evidence, as much as in the short time since I received the summons of the Commissioners, I have been able to collect. I quote from the b. Canon Law, supposed, by Gratian, to be of the date of 345-" That if any man shall espouse a woman, and by sudden death shall be prevented from carnal knowledge of her, his brother shall not be able to marry her." To that effect there are 15 testimonies in the Canon Law; to the contrary, there are three. I quote from the Canon Law again, of the date of 752, a Canon bearing upon the subject, but, as the Latinity seems to be defective, the sense of it is not quite so clear as it might otherwise be. The title of the Canon is, "A man polluting his sister's wife shall not be able to marry either." It is "Uxorem sororis," it should be, "Sororem uxoris." The body of the Canon is plain: "If a man shall lie with two sisters, and one of them was his wife previously, he shall not be able to have either." There is another Canon to the same effect, dated 813. I quote again from the Decretal of Gregory IX., Canon Law of the date 862, "If any woman became my sister by adoption, so long as that adoption subsists between me and her, we cannot possibly marry." I find in 812, that apparently acting upon the maxim expressed by our Saviour," For the hardness of your hearts he wrote this precept," a dispensation was granted to the Livonians lately converted to the faith, that they might marry their brother's widows. I now quote from that body of Canons ascribed to the first Nicene Council, of which the only authentic copy is in the Arabic, and therefore used in the patriarchate of Alexandria, "A man may not marry his wife's god-daughter, nor mother, sister, or daughter of his own god-child, male or female, nor with his wife's bridesmaids, nor with his mother's bridesmaids." The 3rd Chapter of that body of Canons is, that "A man may not marry his mother, grandmother, father's sister, mother's sister, his daughter, sister, his brother's daughter, his sister's daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, father's wife, grandfather's wife, cousin's wife, brother's wife, uncle's wife, brother's son's wife, sister's son's wife, wife's sister, wife's grandmother, wife's brother's daughter, son's wife, grandson's wife, great grandson's wife." 318. Are you aware of the existing law in many of the Protestant States abroad upon this subject?--Not at all. I have only heard, by rumour, that in Denmark there is greater laxity allowed than in England; but further I know nothing. 319. You are not aware that in Prussia, and in a great majority of the Protestant countries abroad, such marriages as these are now permitted by law ?-I am very sorry to hear it. 320. Are you aware also that in a great majority of the Protestant States of America these marriages are allowed?-It is quite enough to make a man abjure the term "Protestant" to hear it. 321. In point of fact, are you aware that that is so ?-To-day I heard that the Americans are looking with great anxiety to the decision of this question. 322. Have you anything further to add with respect to the head which you have now been giving evidence upon-namely, the prohibition of these marriages by the Church in early ages? -Not at present. 323. We will then proceed to the next division of the subject—namely, that which relates to the prohibition by direct reference to the Scriptures?-First, let me state, that where there is found to be in the Church, among bodies otherwise separated, a general consent and agreement as to one point of doctrine, that doctrine ought to be received as the word of God, even if the Scriptures could not be plainly adduced to support it. November 23, 1847. The Hon. and Rev. A. P. Percival. November 23, 1847. 324. Then you assume as a fact, that the doctrine prohibiting these marriages has been, and is now, received by the great body of Christians, comprising all the different sects?—I spoke of the Church; I do not account the Protestant communions on the Continent, or in America, to be churches. 325. You speak solely of what is called the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England?-The Greek Church, and various heretical bodies in the East, and the Church of England. 326. Do you mean to represent the Church of Rome as considering these marriages to be forbidden by the law of God?-What the state of opinion in the Church of Rome at the present day is, I have no knowledge whatever. 327. You spoke of dispensation by the Church of Rome. Is not the very foundation of the power of dispensation the supposition that the matter dispensed with is not of Divine injunction, or of Divine prohibition?-Certainly not in the Church of Rome; because their writers maintain that the Pope has the power to alter the laws of God. 328. Is it your opinion, that they maintain that?-I have met with it distinctly. 329. In what author?-I cannot call to mind. If I had known that I should be asked that question, I would have come provided with proof. 330. Is not the general and avowed opinion of the Church of Rome, that the power of dispensation extends only to that which is not either enjoined or prohibited by the law of God; that the power is, to dispense with the injunctions or prohibitions of the Church, but not those of God?-I have studied a good deal the course pursued by the Church of Rome, and the result of that investigation is, that she holds up a different face in every different country, when it suits her purpose to do so. 331. Can you give any instance of this ?--There is no command of God more sacred than that which our Saviour uttered when he instituted the Holy Eucharist. The Council of Constance acknowledged that he instituted it in both kinds. To the Maronites in the East, who are in full communion with Rome, the Church of Rome allows the use of both kinds, which she forbids to her other congregations. 332. Supposing the assumption to be correct, that the power of dispensation proceeds upon the supposition that what is enjoined, or prohibited, is not enjoined or prohibited by the law of God, but merely by the Church, and that the practice of the Church of Rome has been to grant dispensations for marriages within the degrees of affinity now in question, is not the inevitable result, that it must be supposed that the Church, acting on that principle, did not consider these marriages prohibited to be by the law of God?-Clearly; grant the first assumption, and the other follows 333. With respect to the appeal to Scripture. Are there any other references to Scripture which you would wish to produce, except those which appear in the memorial you have delivered in to the Commissioners ?-No. 334. Are you of opinion, from your experience with respect to these marriages, that it would be beneficial to the people at large to continue the prohibition?-So decidedly, as far as my own experience of my own family goes, that if that law were altered, unless something unforeseen prevented me, I should leave this country, and reside in some country where the law of God is still maintained. 335. Are you aware that the Commissioners have in evidence, that no less than thirteen or fourteen hundred of these marriages have taken place since the year 1835, the date of Lord Lyndhurst's Act?—I am not further aware of that than that I saw, in a report of some cause in the Queen's Bench, 1500 stated to be about the number by Sir Fitzroy Kelly. 336. Assuming the fact to be so, does it not occur to you that it is probable if the state of the law continues as it does, that it will continue to be violated exactly as it has been since the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act?-Even if it were I should hold it no more reason for changing the law than the violation of the law against murder in Ireland. 337. Then you consider that the evils attending upon void marriages, such as the parties not in reality, according to law, being husband and wife, and the children being illegitimate, are small evils compared with that of changing the law?-Not worth naming. 338. And you would be of that opinion, supposing that the number of such marriages instead of being 1500 should be 15,000?-In one point of view I should, in another I should As far as rests upon the law of God and the voice of his Church, the number would make no difference. As far as regards the present happiness of mankind it might. not. 339. In the memorial which you have been kind enough to address to the Commissioners you assume that the number of marriages of this description is not more than 1 in 1000?— I do. 340. Is that 1 marriage in 1000 marriages?-Exactly. 341. Is that assumption founded upon any calculation or upon any facts?—It is very vague, not more than the experience of a considerable extent of country district. 342. Are you aware that a calculation has been made upon the public returns and Parliamentary documents that the proportion of such marriages, in the whole number of marriages of widowers, is 1 in 33?-I was not aware of that. 343. But from the answers which you have given it appears that the proportion would not alter your view of the case?—Not the remotest in the world. 344. But with regard to the national expediency of the law, you thought the proportion an important ingredient to bring forward in your memorial?-Yes. 345. You said that you should no more think of altering the law, in consequence of the number of instances with respect to these marriages, than you would alter the law against murder in Ireland from the frequency of the crime. Would your judgment in that respect be at all altered if you found that, amongst this large number of marriages, a considerable |