The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-27 00:00:00

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

Lord BURY, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
to legalise marriage with a deceased wife's sister,
observed that the question was narrowed to this
point, whether the alleged scriptural prohibition
did really exist, and whether, failing the scriptural
prohibition, these marriages were so objectionable
that they ought to be prohibited. Either these mar-
lieges were prohibited by Scripture or not : if they
were, he asked for the chapter and verse; if, as he
contended, they were not, the question was so far
settled that he was entitled to ask for leave to intro-
duce a declaratory bill to remove a bar which
abridged the liberty of Englishmen.
Mr. DIVETT opposed the motion, and spiel he should
offer the strongest opposition to the bill in all its
stages, considering it to be fraught with the most
melancholy moral and social evils.

Mr. MAI.Iss said that upon a mature consideration
of the question he was convinced that the existing
law required amendment. It it was the intention of
the Legislature to prahibit such marriages, that pro-
hibition should be laid down in terms most plain and
distinct:—

295

Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act declared that all mar-
riages which were not solemnised in a particular way—
such, for in-dance, as those which use I to be celebrated
in Scotland—should be void, yet the decisions of our
courts under the operation of that act held such contracts
to be not void but voidable. The present law with refe-
rence to marriage with a deceased wife's sister was liable
to the same freedom of interpretation, and it was time,
therefore, that some alteration should be made in it which
would place the intention of the Legislature beyond all
doubt. Nothing could, in his opinion, be more ridiculous
than that a person not permitted to marry in this country
should be enabled to do so beyond the seas. If the in-
capacity attaching to the contracting parties were of a
personal character—such, for example, as was created by
the itqyal Marriage Act—then it could not be obviated by
the mere fact of residence in a foreign country. It was,
under these circumstances, perfectly clear that the existing
law stood in need of amendment ; and, although be had
upon two previous occasions voted against any such
amendment, yet he felt bound to say that, upon
more mature consideration, great social evils appeared
to him to result out of the present system. He
also quite concurred with those who thought that the
scriptural argument against marriages with a deceased
wife's sister was untenable, and, entertaining those views,
he should vote for the introduction of the bill, while he
should not, at the same time, pledge himself as to what
course lie should take with respect to it in its subsequent
stages.

Mr Hope and Mr. Lygon opposed the introduction
of the bill. Mr. Fox, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Mellor, Mr.
Gilpin, Mr. Briggs, and Lord Goderich supported the
motion; which, on a division, was carried by a
majority of 103 to 62, and leave was given to intro-
duce the bill.

EQUALISATION OF POOR-RATES.

Mr. AYRTON moved for leave to bring in a bill to
provide a remedy f.r the inequality in the rates for
the relief of the poor in the metropolis. He did not
lay down, he said, any general principle applicable to
all parts of England ; his bill applied solely to the
metropolis, which was in a peculiar position :

The assessment of St. George's, Hanover-square, under
the properly tax, was 1,097,0001., whilst the rating under
the poor-law was 694,0001., being a difference of 400,0001.
between the two assessments. In Marylebone the diffe-
rence was 300,0001. But some of the pourer parishes were
assessed under the poor-law within 8,0001. of the property
tax assessment. in one parish in Bethnal-green the
property-tax rating was 1.28,0001., whilst the poor-law
rating was 130,0001., and it is moth the same in the parish
of St. Mary,Magdalene, Bermondsey.
In order to correct this unequal distribution of a
common burden he did not propose to destroy local
management, but, adopting the very principle of the
original statute of Elizabeth, he proposed to consti-
tute a special sessions of a committee of justices, to
be elected by the benches in quarter sessions of the
four metropolitan counties, whose duty it should be
to determine a uniform rate of assessment for the
metropolis, the local parochial management remain-
ing intact. He would leave it to be discussed in the
committee upon the bill what should be the amount
and ratio of contribution from the rich to the poor
parishes.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS seconded the motion.

Mr. ESTCOURT acknowledged that Mr. Ayr on bad
brought forward the motion with great moderation
and discretion. He had laid before the house a
statement of alleged grievances, and had proposed to
embody a remedy in the firm of a bill, so that the
house and all affected by the measure would be able
to see its provisions. He (Mr. Estcourt) would be
very sorry that the door of the house should be shut
against any grievance ; he should therefore not ob-
ject to the motion, guarding himself, at the same time,
against being supposed to give any opinion as to the
expediency of the measure. He reviewed the chief
features of the proposed plan, expressing a fear that
it might pave the way to a system of national rating
and to an abolition of the wholesome check of local
management. _ _

MI:JOHN LOCKE supported the motion.
Mr. ROEBUCK objected that the hill sinned against
two of the very first principles of the poor law ; it
violated the plain principle of justice in relation to
property, and it sinned against the rule which said
that the locality should overlook and guard the ex-
penditure of the rate. He believed that the bill was
fraught with very great mischief.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he thought it a misfortune
that Mr. Estcourt had given a partial encouragement
to what he (Mr. Bouverie) regarded as a mischievous
scheme by allowing the bill to pass even a single
stage. He adverted to some of its features, and in-
sisted that there was no necessity whatever for the
measure.

Mr. Cosuerr and Mr. TOWNSEND supported the
motion, and leave was given to bring in the bill.

appeared open to less objection than a council nomi-
nated by the Crown, their orders to be confirmed by
order in council.
Mr. WALPOLE thought the bill was by far the best
yet proposed upon the subject, and leave was given
to introduce the bill.
The remaining business having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at a quarter before one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-WED•ZESDAY.

VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr DUNLOP, in moving th second reading of this
bill, explained its objects, and entered into various
details as to the operation of the Act of 18 54 upon
the valuation for the purposes of the assessment and
taxation of landed property in Scotland, with
especial reference to certain alleged exemptions,
including deer forests, woodlands, and shootings.
Lord DUNCAN opposed the bill, because it was
drawn up in a spirit directly contrary to that which
pervaded the Act of 1854, and because every part
of it bad been already discussed and rejected by the
house, and he moved to defer the second reading
for six months.

The bill was opposed by Mr. Mackie, Mr. Finlay,
Mr. Black, Sir M. Stewart, and Lord Elcho, and
supported by Mr. Cowan.
The LORD ADVOCATE, who gave a very lucid ex-
position of the somewhat dry and technical details of
the subject, opposed the further progress of the
measure. _ _

The discussion was continued for some time, all
the speakers, with the exception of Mr. Craufurd,
opposing the bill.
Ultimately, the amendment was agreed to ; so the
bill is lost.