Page:Cihm12428.djvu/13

 We shall hereafter expose the dangerous criticisms and absurd borrowed fallacies of this writer. We will close these preliminary observations at present with the remarks of two or three distinguished churchmen respecting the Act of 1835. The late Robert Southey said, in a letter to a friend,—"But has it never occurred to you, my dear Wynn, that this law is an abominable relic of ecclesiastical tyranny? Of all second marriages, I have no hesitation in saying that these are the most suitable." The late Lord Francis Egerton, (afterwards Earl of Ellesmere), said, in a speech in the House of Commons: In 1835 a most important Statute had been passed by that House, under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and he might say, of haste, and want of due deliberation, materially affecting the marriage laws of this country. In this case, the voice of Heaven was silent, and that of man had been given with a hesitation and confusion of utterance that deprived it of its due authority." Lord Houghton observed, on the same occasion:—"That our Established Church should select one point of the Canon law, and establish an arbitrary limit without giving any power of dispensation, was, he was sorry to say, a very great tyranny, and one which be felt convinced the true principles of the Church of England did not sanction." We will merely add here the words of the late Dr. Lee, Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, and afterwards Bishop of Manchester: "From all I have been able to learn on the question, 'Whether a man may marry a deceased wife's sister,' my opinion is that neither does Holy Scripture any where forbid it, nor ever did the Jews."