"It is certain that the Old Testament does not directly condemn such marriages, and it is very doubtful whether it condemns them even by inference. It is not at all doubtful that it sanctions, and sometimes eminently blesses, polygamy; that it strictly enjoins that, in every case of adultery, both parties should be put to death; that it makes it a capital offence for a man to have intercourse with a woman who, though unmarried, was betrothed to another; that it commands that a man who had defiled an unbetrothed virgin should be compelled to marry her; that it forbids marriage with aliens in religion; that it not only permits, but enjoins a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother if she had no children, or only daughters, which could scarcely be the case if such marriages of affinity were in their own nature incestuous. It is not easy to understand the process of mind which, among all these provisions of the Jewish code, selects a very doubtful inference condemnatory of marriage with the deceased wife's sister as alone binding on the conscience of the Imperial Parliament."—Lecky, op. cit., II, 216, 217.
[296] Lecky, op. cit., II, 215; cf. Allen, Opinions, 36.
[297] Russia appears to be the only important European exception: Huth, op. cit., 130, 131.
[298] For abundant proofs of what Mr. Lecky would call the "insularity" of the English mind in this regard, see the mass of matter—letters, speeches, and declarations of prelates, noblemen, and private persons—contained in that marvelous monument of mediævalism, the two volumes of Tracts Issued by the Mar. Law Defence Union. Mr. Gladstone's speeches are a conspicuous example: ibid., II, 174 ff.
[299] Hansard, 3d series, CCLXXX, 1675. This was Lord Hatherley: see Tracts Issued by Mar. Law Defence Union, II, 161, 162, where he repeats the statement. Compare the views of the bishop of Exeter, in the same Tracts, I, 19, who predicts an orgy of incest if the law be changed: "At the present, no doubt, there is a strong natural instinct against the marriage of a man with his own mother. It is awful to think of. The marriage of a man with his own blood sister is fearful. But this instinctive protection of our domestic purity, how far does it go if we begin to pare the edges off." The Metropolitan (1880) indulges in like forebodings: ibid., I, 97, 98.
[300] Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 221-23.
[301] The only special work on parliamentary divorce is that contained in Macqueen's Practical Treatise, 463-68, comprising a clear historical "Introduction;" the "Action at Law;" the "Petition and Bill;" the "General Preparation of the Case;" the "Second Reading and Subsequent Proceedings;" and an interesting "Selection of Leading Cases." See also Law Review, I, 362 ff.; Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 200-202; Geary, Marriage and Family Relations, 17, 18; Hammick, Marriage Law, 18; Shelford, Law of Marriage and Divorce, 373-79; Bishop, Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, I, §§ 1422 ff.; Woolsey, Divorce, 172-74; Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, II, 340-44; Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 178-81; Wharton, Exposition of Laws Relating to Women, 471-84; Glasson, Le marriage civil et le divorce, 318, 319; Burn, Ecc. Law, II, 503b, 503c; Hirschfeld, "The Law of Divorce in England and in Germany," Law Quarterly Review, XIII, 398, 399; Montmorency, "The Changing Status of a Married Woman," ibid., 191; Plea for an Alt. in the Divorce Laws, 5 ff.; Scribner, Treatise on the Law of Dower, II, 542 ff.; and especially the full account by Morgan, Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce, II, 237-313.
[302] Geary, Marriage and Family Relations, 17: Rot. Parl., 15 H. VI, Nos. 14, 15.
[303] Macqueen, Practical Treatise, 469. Cf. n. 4, p. 80, above.
[304] The act, being private, was never printed in the collections of statutes; but a writer in the Law Review, I, 363 n. 1, publishes it from the "House copy in the parliament office." Cf. Macqueen, op. cit., 471-73, 551-61, who discusses the case, giving Bishop Cozen's argument, but he does not appear to have had a copy of the statute before him. See Evelyn, Diary (London, 1878), II, 49 n. 3, who declares that the Roos divorce bill was carried under influence of corrupt political motives; and he is followed by Keble, Sequel to the Argument, 212 ff.; and Morgan, Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce, II, 237 ff. For a number of instructive details relating to this case, extending over the years 1662-70, taken from the manuscripts of the House of Lords, see Reports of Hist. MSS. Com., VII, 165, 166; VIII, 102a, 117a, App. I, 141a; XII, App. V, 8; App. VII, 69. The last entry runs: "1669, March 14. News letter. Lord Roos presses for liberty to marry again, urging precedent of Marquess of Northampton. All the bishops oppose except the B. of Durham." It is here noted that the act finally passed April 11, 1670; 22 Car. II., 1, Private Acts. The case gave rise to The Case of Divorce and Re-Marriage thereupon (London, 1673), in which a "Reverend Prelate of the Church of England" denies, and a "private Gentleman" maintains, the right of remarriage on scriptural authority.