The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-10 00:00:00

- S._ Velghton movedTat-ande-tho freehold franchise in
thy. provision of uniforinity, with the view of giving
fieeholders in boroughs votes Ivr the boroughs.
Attarney-General opposed the amendment, point-
ing out that it would deprive these freeholders of their
-county votes, and the committee was still engaged on
it when the hour for adjournment arrived.

The

MARRIAGE WITH I DECEASED 'O7/FE'S SISTER.
At the evening sittivg Mr. Broadkairst moved—" That
in view of the painful and unnecessary hardships in..
fticted upon large numbers of people in this country by
the law prohibiting marriage with a deceased wife's
-sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of
relief is urgently called for." The general consensus of
opinion, he maintained, was in 'favour of legalising these
marriages, which were far mere numerous amongst the
working classes than amongst any other class.
Mr. Iteneage, in seconding the motion, expressed his
.opinion that the prohibition was neither just nor expe-
dient, nor in consonance with any Divine or natural
law. These marriages, he pointed out, were permitted
by the Jewish and Mahomedan religion and by all
other Christian sects, and they had been legalized in
many of our colonies.
Colonel Makins, as an amendment, moved an address
to the Crown praying for the appointment of a Royal
Commission to inquire into the laws relating to
marriages within the prohibited degrees. These
marriages, he maintained in opposition to Mr. Broad.
hurst, were distasteful to a large majority in all the
three kingdoms, and especially to the women. To
legalise them, he argued, would be a gross injustice on
those who did not desire to contract them, and by dis-
turbing the present family relations wont.' produce an
effect entirely opposite to its intention.
Colonel Milne Home supported the present law in
the social interest of all classes, especially of the work-
ing classes.
Mr. E. Clarke supported the motion, and dealt with
the scriptural argument, which he maintained told
rather in favour of the permission than the prohiJition
of these marriages. In like manner he refused to
attach any weight to the objection founded on the
supposedjealousy of the wife, feeling certain that, in
the majority of cases, the wife would find comfort in
anticipating that her sister would take her place with
the husband and children. As to the canon law
argument, he denied that the canons ecclesiastical had
any binding force, and warned those who relied on this
objection that to attempt to stretch the law of the
Church over communities which did not belong to her
would lead to disaster and degradation.
Mr. Thomasson spoke in favour of the motion, and
Mr. C. Phipps, in opposing it, denied that the change
was desired by the rural population.
Earl Percy regarded the Scriptural argument as alone
worth resting on, and that depended not on one or two
texts but on the whole tenour of Bible teaching as to
the nature of marriage.
Mr. H. Fowler, reviewing the history of Lord
Lyndhurst's Act, maintained that these marriages were
not contrary to the ancient law of England. As to the
Scriptural argument, the varying opinions of different
sects led to the conclusion that the question should be
left to each individual conscience. The social grounds
were all on the side of these marriages, and a strong
argument in favour of the motion was to be drawn from
the anomalies in which society was involved by the laws
passed by the colonies.
Mr. B. Hope and Sir P. O'Brien spoke against the
the resolution, and on a division it was carried by 238
to 127.
Some other business was disposed cf, and the House
adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock.