number of them have been contracted by good Christians, persons of exemplary moral and The Hon. and Rev. religious habits?-Not the remotest in the world.

346. That is, regarding it as being against the injunction of God, you would not consider that at all important?-Certainly not.

347. Supposing it not to be contrary to the injunctions of God's law, but only contrary to the injunctions of the law of the Church, would that circumstance make any difference?—I consider the law of the Church in such a case, unless the clear law of God to the contrary can be adduced from Holy Scripture, to be the voice of God himself.

348. And to be binding upon the laity as well as upon the clergy?—If they have souls to be saved, they must be bound by the same laws that we are.

349. In this memorial you represent the application to the Legislature to relax the law upon this subject, as seeking to extort from society a locus standi, or reception for the parties, which society itself is found to be unwilling to grant. Do you speak from experience when you assert, that society is unwilling to grant a locus standi, and to give reception to persons who have contracted these marriages?-I do. In the whole range of my acquaintance, clergy and laity, the very thought is abhorred.

350. Do you speak from a knowledge of any instances of persons who have entered into that connexion, and have been repudiated by their families and acquaintance?-No. I am not aware, in the whole of my acquaintance, of a single individual so circumstanced.

351. You do not speak from actual personal experience, but from your opinion as to what the reception of persons in that situation would be?-From personal knowledge of the opinion expressed to me by other individuals.

352. Are you aware that there are many instances of persons of exemplary life, and of all ranks, including almost the highest, in this position, who are still received by their families and friends, and by general society exactly like other persons ?-I was not aware of it till this moment, except in the case of the late in which a special exemption has been obtained by the

authority of Parliament.

353. With your views with regard to the law of God and the law of the Church, you would equally disapprove of that portion of that Act of Parliament which sanctioned and made vliad the marriages which preceded it?-Clearly, it was a mere civil regulation.

354. A civil regulation which, in your opinion, was a violation of the law of God and of the law of the Church ?-As far as it encouraged the continued cohabitation of the parties. But as far as regards the inheritance of the children, it rests with the Legislature to make any arrangements they please, without reference to the law of God,

355. But, as regards the principle, the sanctioning of foregone marriages would equally come under the category of an infringement of the law of God, supposing it to be against the law of God, would it not?-Certainly. But I do not think it would be against the law of God to allow the children of such parents to inherit their estates.

356. Then, as far as that Act of Parliament did sanction and encourage the continued cohabitation of the parties who had so married previously to that enactment, it is, in your opinion, an infringement both of the law of God and of the law of the Church?-It is directly sinful. 357. You are aware that the Bishops of the Church of England were assenting parties to that Act of Parliament ?—I heard to day, by accident, that they had been ; but that would not alter my view of the subject in the least,

358. There is a part of your memorial in which you speak of England isolating herself from the rest of Christendom if she relax her law, so as not to prohibit marriages within the degrees of affinity. Was that part of your memorial written before you were aware, that, in many Christian nations of the world, these marriages were allowed, in some cases without dispensation, and in others with dispensation ?—I was not aware at the time of writing that, of what I have been in-formed since I came into this room, that the Protestant nations of the continent and the Protestant sects of America sanctioned this kind of marriage.

359. You said, that if the law were altered, you should be inclined to leave this country for some country in which such marriages were prohibited. Can you name any countries to which you could resort?—I suppose I could be safe under the Greek Church.

360. Are you aware whether the Greek Church grant dispensations or not for such marriages?-1 have never heard of their doing so but our documents respecting the Greek Church are so scanty, that I can only go by assumption.

361. Are you an incumbent of a parish at present ?--No.

362. Have you at any time had the charge of a populous parish?-Never.

363. You are not able to give the Commissioners any practical information as to the working of the present law amongst any class of society?-None whatever.

364. You do not know whether the prohibition of these marriages leads, in some cases, to concubinage?-All I know at present is, that I have reason to believe, that, in many instances, these alliances are contracted sheerly through ignorance; that if the law were more clearly known, they would not be thought of.

365. Should you say that if you were aware, that many of these marriages have been contracted after most anxious inquiry both from legal and ecclesiastical authorities?—I spoke of my own knowledge only.

A. P. Percival. November 23, 1847.

The Rev. Joshua Frederick Denham.

366. You are the incumbent of a parish in London?—Rector of St. Mary-le-Strand, and Lecturer of St. Bride's, Fleet-street.

367. What is the population of your parish?-2050 by the last census.

The Rev. J. F.

Denham.

The Rev. J. F.
Denham.

November 23, 1847.

368. In your parish are included inhabitants of almost every class, excepting the very highest?-Somerset-house is in the parish, and there are persons of the higher orders of society residing there; but, generally speaking, it includes persons of all classes, except the very highest and not the most deplorably poor-not such as in St. Giles's and some other metropolitan parishes.

369. Have you reason to know, as a matter of fact, whether, within your parishes, there are persons who have married the sisters of their deceased wives?—Yes, I do know such cases. 370. Have you reason to think that they are numerous?—I do not know of many existing at this time.

371. Those that you do know, in what class of life are they?—Tradesmen.

372. In your communications with the respectable portion of your parishioners, do you find that those persons to whom you allude are regarded by their neighbours, and by their equals in society, with any less respect in consequence of having formed those connexions?—I believe that it is remembered against them by vulgar-minded and ill-disposed people.

373. But amongst respectable persons of their own class of life, do you find that they are reflected upon as having done an immoral action?-Not amongst thoughtful and serious people, intelligent and well-informed people. Though it is remembered, and they are always under a disadvantage, I believe, just as everybody is who is supposed to lie under a social blot of any kind; though it is never forgotten, I do not believe it is visited upon them by respectable people with any sense of disparagement or degree of disfavour.

374. With respect to those tradesmen, amongst whom you say that you know instances of such marriages, are they entitled to respect on all other accounts?-Certainly. I do not mention names, because I should not like to attract public attention towards them; but I regard the female, in one case, as a most decided excellent Christian, and the husband is a very good well-meaning man; I think they were united before the year 1835-before the Act of William IV. In another case that I refer to, they have been married within a very short time-a few months.

375. Were they married in England or abroad?-One party was married at my church, St. Mary-le-Strand. I never heard of the other party going abroad to be married. I refer to one party now belonging to my parish, and another living a short distance out of my parish, but both those cases are well known to me; the parties are in all moral respects highly respectable. 376. In the case of marriage that took place in your own church, were you cognizant of it? Did you perform the ceremony?--I did not perform the ceremony; I was absent at the time; but a gentleman who officiated for me did perform the ceremony. I was not aware of it by a peculiar accident; I was from home. I think that was as far back as the year 1835.

377. Was it before Lord Lyndhurst's Act?-I think so. I have always considered that they were legally safe.

378. That is, that the marriage has been ratified and made legal by the Act of Parliament? -Yes; although similar marriages are declared void since, or, at least, supposed to be so. 379. Did the other marriages you have spoken of occur before the Act or since?—The second case to which I referred has occurred within a few months.

350. Do you refer only to two cases?—I refer only to two cases now.

381. Have you reason to think that marriages of that description are common amongst the lower classes?—I think they have been very common.

382. Have you, as a matter of experience, and as regards the lower classes especially, formed any opinion whether a marriage of that description generally contributes to the comfort and to the moral benefit of the parties?-Decidedly so.

383. Do you believe it to be of advantage to the children of a poor man who is engaged in his work, to have the sister of their deceased mother as their stepmother?-Very great; that is the great inducement to it, it is a great advantage.

384. Your attention has been turned to this subject for some time?-It has. I have written a pamphlet upon it, which is published this day. (See p. 35n.)

385. Have you ever had occasion to observe, either in the middling classes or in the poorer classes, any injury or immorality arising from marriages of this description?—I have never seen a case of such a nature.

386. It is hardly necessary to ask you whether, viewing the matter as you do, you have thought it your duty, as a clergyman, to admonish any of those parties that they were acting in breach of the Divine law?-No, I never did, because I never believed it.

387. Have you any other information upon this subject that you wish to communicate to the Commissioners? I have no particular facts to which I can refer. I can give my own impression from observation, and from having taken a deep interest in the matter. I think that the great inducement to these marriages is, that the parties have a better opportunity, than is generally afforded, of being acquainted with each other's real character and disposition. I think these are marriages which are not sought by any means in a large proportion of instances, but that where the parties have a mutual knowledge of each other's character and principles of conduct; those unions are almost inevitably sought, and that they are almost universally happy among such persons as would have behaved well to each other under any circumstances, and that the prospect is very pleasing for domestic peace and comfort under such circumstances; that the children have the best chance of a good step-mother in the aunt; and I never knew a case where it was otherwise, though I have known many cases of such marriages in town and country, having been 21 years in orders, in December next. I have been minister both in a country village, and in the metropolis, and I never knew nor heard of an unhappy marriage of this description.

388. Where were you on religious duty before you came to London?-My clerical life is this: I left St. John's College, Cambridge, in 1826; I was ordained by the Archbishop of

York to the curacy of Littleborough, a very small village, consisting of about 60 inhabitants, on the banks of the Trent, in December, 1826. I lived at that time at Wheatley, a village five miles off, between Retford and Gainsborough, and had the care of that church; it was a village, consisting of about 300 inhabitants. I then removed to Epworth, in Lincolnshire, of which I became curate, and remained there till 1828. Epworth consists of about 2200 or 2300 inhabitants. From Epworth I came to London, having been elected evening lecturer of St. Bride's, Fleet-street; St. Bride's then consisted, I suppose, of about 10,000 inhabitants, though it has been since divided. I then became early morning lecturer at St. Swithin's London Stone, which contains about 600 or 700 inhabitants. I then became curate of St. Dunstan's in the West, which contains, (liberties and all,) about 8000 or 9000 inhabitants. While curate of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, I was requested to take the curacy of St. Mary-leStrand, the living I now hold, and which I held for 10 years; and upon the petition of many of the inhabitants to the present Lord Chancellor, I was appointed rector. The Commissioners will thus see that I have had opportunities in retired villages, and in towns, and largely in the metropolis, having been every hour occupied in some clerical position during my whole career, of observing facts of this kind.

389. Have you reason to think that in agricultural populations, over which you have had the care, the same practice exists of forming these marriages?-I should think not so much, because they are more accessible to the odium of obloquy. Everything is known in a country village; of course an enemy, or any one who had the slightest spite against the man or the woman, when they quarrelled, would take care to remind each other of it, especially children, when they quarrelled, would take care to remind them if they knew of this blot upon their social position.

390. According to your experience, do you think that a widower and the sister of his deceased wife, if the parties be still in early life, young persons, can live together without reproach or reflection by their neighbours under the present law?—I should think they might. I cannot see that any one who was not really ill-disposed, and disposed to reflect without reason, would reflect upon them. I should think, that if the prohibition were removed, there would be still less objection to a deceased wife's sister keeping the husband's house, because it would be known, that they might marry if they wished to do so.

391. The presumption would be, that if there was any feeling of that sort between them, they would marry?-Decidedly; otherwise, it would then stand upon the same ground as a female servant, or any female, not a relative, living with any bachelor. I think if a man could marry if he would, it would be said, that either he was indisposed or he could marry if he was inclined to do so, and it would then be reduced to the case of a bachelor and his housekeeper, or his servant; but as long as there is a restriction, it might give room for suspicion, or for an illiberal construction being put upon the circumstance that they lived together, that no doubt they were living improperly.

392. Is not the opposite view of the case sometimes taken; which opposite view is this, that persons of different sexes, who necessarily must have very familiar intercourse with one another, ought not to have the idea of marriage crossing their minds at all?—I have directed my attena. tion to that very particular. It is said, that you ought to make them feel towards each other as if they were own brother and sister; that such is the proximity to which marriage brings a man with the females of his wife's family, that you ought to interpose a legal restriction between them; because if you do not, a man would attempt to commit adultery with his wife's sister during her lifetime, or to seduce her after her death; that the proximity into which they are brought gives rise to familiarity, and suggests these feelings. To which my answer is, this pre-supposes that there is always some peculiar temptation or inducement of this nature. Now are there any facts adducible to prove that such temptation or liability does exist? Do cases of adultery with a wife's sister occur, in proportion, oftener than adultery with strangers? Do cases of seduction of a wife's sister, after her death, occur more frequently than other instances in the annals of licentiousness? Is there not, on the contrary, a great presumption against such a thing, because it would tend to the complete and immediate destruction of the man's domestic peace? Adultery with a wife's sister would be attended with the greatest certainty of detection. It is contrary to all the plans and plots of the libertine to go and immediately destroy his own domestic peace. Job describes the adulterer as "setting his face in secret," and saying, "No eye shall see me." It is not to be supposed, that a man purposely goes and blows to atoms his own domestic happiness. And with regard to the seduction of such a woman, after the wife's death, it is always considered an atrocious act as committed towards one related to him by affinity. Then it supposes, also, that the wife's sister should always be a very agreeable woman to the widower, so that there would be a peculiar temptation to him. If you remove the b. restriction and give him an opportunity of marriage, then, if a man might possibly marry the sister upon his wife's death, he would never think of committing adultery with her during his wife's life, even supposing he had a greater attachment to her than towards his wife. This, as far as I can recollect, is the substance of the argument that I have used in my pamphlet.

393. You said that you thought that these marriages were not so frequent in agricultural districts, because, living in smaller societies, malicious persons would be apt to remind the parties of the nature of their union, and the kind of legal blot that there was upon their connexion. Do not you think that the same class of persons who, from motives of that description reflected upon their marriage, would be equally likely to reflect on the character of any young woman who lived with her deceased sister's husband in intimacy?-If, for instance, she kept his house after his wife's death, ill-natured people might reflect upon it decidedly. But I think that bachelors, who have females in the house, not absolutely related to them by consanguinity, are always liable to such suspicions from ill-natured people. I do not think that, generally speaking, this case would be more liable to it than any other case of that sort.

The Rev. J. F.
Denham.

November 23,

1847.

F

The Rev. J. F.
Denham.

November 23, 1847.

394. Would such a person be in any degree liable to it ?-No more than a bachelor and his housekeeper or any other woman who is not related to him-a friend living with him to manage his house. If they were about the same age, I think that ill-natured people everywhere would probably suggest that they were upon terms of cohabitation.

395. Do you think that the mere fact of her being the sister of his deceased wife would tend to prevent those reflections being made where another person would be exposed to them ?—I think it would they would not consider a man capable of so atrocious a feeling as to wish to seduce her. A respectable female, if she saw that there was any suspicion induced by her going to live with her deceased sister's husband, would not go and live with him. I think that the man himself, knowing that he was liable to such suspicion, would not choose such a housekeeper.

396. Do you not think it very probable that the fear of that consequence does prevent sisters from living with their deceased sisters' husbands?-I think it does, because there is a great deal of vulgar odium attached to marriages of this description.

397. In point of fact, do you think that it would be without danger if the sister of a deceased wife, at the early age say of 20, went to live with and take care of the children of her brotherin-law of the age perhaps of 25?--Certainly, where there are children, no danger at all. It would be understood by every right-minded person in society, who would commend the conduct of a sister in going to take care of her deceased sister's motherless babes.

398. You think there would be no danger from that, even without marriage?—No, except in a case of combination of wickedness and folly, against which no human laws can provide. A bad man will seduce any woman under any circumstances. But taking mankind as they are, and Englishmen, generally speaking, as they are, I believe there is no necessity for legislation in the case-that there is no necessity for any restriction that the matter might be left unrestricted, and I believe no immorality would accrue; but I believe much immorality would be prevented.

399. Do you know of any case where the parties have married in order to silence reflections which were made upon the position in which they were living?—No; I never knew such a case. 400. Who was the incumbent of St. Dunstan's at the time you were there?-The Rev. Mr. Lloyd.

401. And of St. Bride's?-Mr. Clare was Vicar of St. Bride's when I was first elected. 402. May what you said with respect to the prevalence of these marriages in St. Mary-leStrand be considered as applying also to the parishes of St. Bride's and of St. Dunstan's-in-the West?—I cannot say that I recollect distinctly any particular cases in either of these parishes so well as I know those two I have mentioned, one of which is in my parish, and the other close to it; but I have a floating idea of having been acquainted with such facts from time to time throughout my whole career. It is a matter familiar to my ideas and feelings that such things do exist; but I cannot exactly refer so distinctly to the names and circumstances with reference to any others as I can with reference to those.

403. In your experience, are the clergy of London with whom you are acquainted astute in endeavouring to discover, before they marry parties, whether they are within the prohibited degrees?—I certainly do not think they are. The whole question of banns in the metropolis, and the procedure in such cases, is subject to very great irregularity. We cannot find out with certainty whether the parties do really live in our parishes. Some put up the banns and declare that they are residing in the parish; and they will pay a certain sum to a poor housekeeper in the parish to report them as residing there a certain time. It is a most difficult thing throughout the Metropolis for us to be sure that the parties applying to be married are really parishioners residing for the legal term; and that is the answer which we are obliged to give to the Bishop at his visitation. I find that people go out of the parish continually to be married in other parishes; and by the success with which they obtain marriage in those other parishes, I am persuaded that a system of inquiry is not carried out rigidly by the clergy of London, and that it is a fruitless task to endeavour to do so.

404. In your opinion is it probable that, with any extent of inquiry and any degree of astuteness, the clergy would still be unable to prevent these marriages, where the parties were inclined to enter into them?-I think they would easily deceive us; for they would go to another parish, one of the large parishes with 40,000 or 50,000 inhabitants, and put up the banus, and it would be a great chance if they were discovered.

405. So that even if there were a statutory provision imposing a penalty upon the clergyman for solemnizing marriages of this description, there would be great difficulty in preventing it by any inquiry which the clergy could make?-There would be great difficulty. The clergy then would be under the necessity in the largest parishes of making strict inquiries whether the parties had resided the statutory time. But, at present, certainly that is not done. 406. Would that be practicable in large parishes where the population is extensive?—I think in a parish of say 150,000 inhabitants, such a parish as Shoreditch, St. Pancras, or Clerkenwell, in such parishes it would be one person's work almost to go all over the parish to the addresses given. The address would be required and put down, and then, as the clerk or the sexton would be unable from his other avocations to do it, it would be almost one person's work to go over the parish and to make the requisite inquiries, and then I believe it would be generally found that parties seeking such marriages would resort to the plan of giving a few shillings to some householder in the parish to declare "Oh, yes! A B and C D live here." That has been done in my own small parish. I believe I take more precaution than almost any other clergyman, because mine is a very small parish comparatively; but. even after I have done all this they deceive me upon this plan.

407. You are now speaking of ascertaining the residence of the parties within your parish? -Yes.

408. If there is that difficulty in ascertaining even the residence, what, in your opinion, would be the difficulty of ascertaining what their relationship and affinities are?-I think that in the case of a very small parish the clergyman, being amongst his people continuously, might be aware of such a circumstance, but in a large parish it would be mere accident for him to know of such affinity.

409. In your opinion as long as the people, speaking generally, do not consider these marriages as immoral, do you think that any Legislative measure, however stringent, would prevent a recurrence of them?-I do not; for the most religious people I know do not consider them as forbidden by Scripture. In the case of one of the families I spoke of, the lady is a decided and exemplary Christian, who would do nothing, I am persuaded, that she did not consider as warranted by God's law. I believe the impression of religious people generally is, that there is no prohibition in the Scriptures against marriage with a deceased wife's sister, or that if such did exist in the Levitical code it is not binding upon Christians now. They have a very clear conscience as far as God's word is concerned; they believe that it does not at all forbid such marriages, and I may express my own belief, which is the result of very considerable investigation, that such is the case. Nothing will ever persuade the religious and intelligent portion of the population of this country that there is any such prohibition in God's law.

410. As long as that impression exists, you are of opinion that no statutory prohibition will have the effect of preventing the occurrence of such marriages?—I firmly believe it never will; because even now wherever the human law, as it now stands, contravenes their wishes with regard to marriage, they set very light by it in a variety of ways. For instance, if parties meet with a slight impediment in putting up the banns-supposing, for example, I have found that parties did not belong to my parish, and I have in consequence suspended the banns-I have reason to fear that those parties have gone away, and said, "We shall content ourselves with the application we have made to the church: we have made an honest effort to be married, what is the mere reading of the ceremony to us? We are as much married in the sight of God as we should be if the priest had joined our hands." The whole question of the cerea. mony of marriage, as to the ecclesiastical part of it, has a very frail tenure over the minds of the people of this country, and especially since the permission of marriage by the Registrars. They have exceedingly confounded the two things, the legality of the tie, and the sacredness of the tie. The sacredness of marriage, in the view of the poor, has very much sunk in consequence. They say, "We can be married in a lawyer's office, or in the Union-house, just as well as in the church; and if there are two modes of marrying, let us have our own." They have a familiar phrase in common life for the designation of this sort of marriage. "Jumping over the broom-stick" is a common phrase amongst the lower orders of people, both in town and in country; and that that is continually done I am persuaded from the fact, that there are so many who merely put up the banns, but of whom I never hear again, I believe as many as two-thirds. Out of 50 who put up the banns, I believe there are as many as 30 who content themselves with having had the banns put up; and then they say, "Marriage after all is only a ceremony; we are as much married as we should be if we went to the church; we shall merely incur a legal liability by going to the minister; I am persuaded of your affection; my children will never be so well provided for as by you. Now, if you do not think ceremony of any importance, I will live with you and you with me. We have no public character to lose; no man will injure me for this. If I am a butcher or a baker, my meat or my bread is just as good as it ever was; and, as to the Government making us amenable for it in the Ecclesiastical Court, they will have to proceed against half the nation if they do; we have nothing to fear." Under these circumstances, seeing that the sacredness of marriage as to the ecclesiastical portion of it has received so severe a shock, I thing it would be a wise thing to diminish the restriction which exists in this respect as to marriage.

411. Do you conceive that there should be no restriction, either in respect of consanguinity or affinity? No. The restriction should not be removed as to consanguinity by any means. The law of nature and the law of God both prohibit marriages in cases of consanguinity.

412. What would be the authorities you would refer to in proof that the law of God prohibited marriages in consequence of consanguinity, though not in consequence of affinity?The 18th, 19th, and 20th of Leviticus, in which there is a prohibition against approaching any of "the remainder of his flesh." As the Hebrew reads, "Thou shalt not approach or unto any one that is of the remainder of flesh.”

413. In a former part of your evidence you spoke of the Levitical law as considered by some people as being applicable only to the Jews?-Yes; but I beg it to be understood that that is not my own opinion. I believe that the moral part of it is still binding upon all mankind, being a re-publication of the law of nature. I believe that a marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not contrary to the law of nature, because it never was prohibited or decided against by any moralist or legislator of antiquity throughout the world; but every other marriage prohibited by the Levitical code was prohibited by the Greeks and Romans as a violation of the laws of nature, independently of the knowledge of revelation. Marriages within the degrees of consanguinity are prohibited both by the natural and the revealed law of God; but with respect to marriages within the degrees of affinity, that there is no moral wrong in such marriages is evident from the analogy of the law by which a woman was required to marry the brother of her deceased husband; and this law was anterior to the Levitical law, as appears from the

In reference to this answer, and to the answers to the next two preceding queries, Mr. Denham observed "It may possibly seem as if I held that the Divine Law did not prohibit marriage within certain degrees of affinity, as well as consanguinity. Now that I do hold, that the Divine Law prohibits marriage within certain degrees of affinity, also is evident from my pamphlet, On Marriage with a deceased Wife's Sister' (London, 1847). At pp. 41, 44, I have maintained, that affinity is the ground for the Divine prohibition of a man's marrying his step-mother, and that affinity is one of the grounds of prohibition in the Levitical Code. I wish, therefore, my answers to be understood as expressing, that MARRIAGE with a deceased wife's sister, is not a case prohibited by the Divine Law on the ground of affinity."

The Rev. J. F,
Denham.

November 23, 1847.