The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Wsvintspay, MAY 2.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S MISR

BILL.
(Continued from yesterday's Express).
Mr. HUNT thought they were entitled to say that
the law of this country had made these marriages illegal
becalm they were against God's law. The boss. and
learned member only proposed to make these marriages good
when they were contracted before a registrar. Was not that
because he knewthat the ministersof the gospel were against
them ; and would they be against thong they did not con-
eider the marriages against God's law! He agreed with
the hon. and le-irnoll member in his condemnation of Lord
Lyyndhurst's Act. So far as it rendered valid former mar-
riage* of this kind it was a detestable measure, but so far
as it made the law certain it was a good measure. Then
with regard to the social aspect of the question, he be-
lieved it would have a very bad effect. At present no
hotline of jealousy could arise in the wife when her sister
came to nurse her in sickness, and to superintend the
house ; but would not that feeling arise if the sister might
marry the husband The case had been argued as if it were
• poor man's question ; but in 1845 a commission was ap-
pointed on the subject, and some statistics were collected,
from which it appoaredthatof 1,645 of these marriages five
were of magistrates ; of persons of title and belonging to
the upper classes, 70 • ministers of the gospel, 30; middle
dares, including tradesmen, 1,503 ; labourers and me-
-40. That was a sufficient proof that this was not
•▪
labourer's question. Them there was another point, and
that was in reference to a divorced wife. Was it proposed
to enable a man to marry his divorced wife's sister,
the divorced wife being still living ; because all the
arguments in favour of this bill would ply to that I He
ap
believed this bill would cause an immense amount of
mischief. He believed it was not called for by public
opinion, and that the agitation for it was got up entirely
by a few individuals who bad broken the law, and that
the more the question was looked into the more they
would be of opinion that it was desirable to maintain the
present state of the law. On these grounds he asked the
louse to reject this bill. He concluded by moving that
the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HiGESSEN said this was not
way question, and her Majesty's government would not
throw the weight of their authority on one side or the other,
but each member of it would vote in his individual '
capacity. This was a question on which there was not
likely to be much agitation, for those who suffered by the
Jaw were comparatively few, and they suffered in silence.
But they were the representatives of a large number in
this country, who conscientiously believed that neither in
a social, moral, or in a religious point of view could any
valid objection be urged to these marriages. They knew
that these marriages were legal in every other protestant
community, and they simply asked that those who so be-
lieved might act upon that sentiment, and that their
children might be relieved from civil disability. They
asked no interference with those who held contrary opi-
nions, who would be able as heretofore to act according to
the dictates of their conscience. He did not desire to enter
into the theological part of this subject, but the principle
that had been adopted in legislation now was that theolo-
teleriev:Sintliioar the law
deal_ atot inpvreoseivnet desistedvil .
opelity
ratt:d in-
juriously on society, and that the alteration proposed
would lead to great and lasting benefits ; and so believing,
be could come to no other conclusion than to give an honest
and hearty napped to this bilL (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MONK said he should record his vote against the
second reading.
Sir G. GREY, having frequently expressed his opinionon
this subject, would not again enter into the arguments
which had been advanced with regard to it, ezcept to say
that, looking to the interests of society, he thought the
balance of these arguments was in favour of an alteration of
the law. (Hear, hear.) He did not think the house was
competent to try the question whether these marriages
were prohibited by Scripture, but that was a matter upon
which it was the duty of members individually to make
up their minds, and if any member thought
they were so prohibited, be was ckuite right in
opposiug the alteration proposed by the bill. He could
only repeat what he had said on • former occasion, that
unless there was some reasonable expectation of parliament
agreeing to wine change in the law, it was not desirable to
keep up a perpetual agitation of the question, because it
induced persons to contract these marriages in the hope
of their being legalised, and thus not only did great injury
to them, but exposed them to much misery. (Hear, hear.)

- -
Sir W. LIEATHCOTE was disappointed at what bad
fallen front the right hon. gentleman, because in the last
session he held out an expectation that he would not en-
courage the re-opening of this difficult and delicate ques-
tion, and that he would not again vote for the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. C. BUXTON said that the supporters of the bill
wished to get rid of a serious and cruel grievance, and to
bring the marriage law in consonance with the moral sense
of the country.
Mr. B. HOPS reminded the house that, though members
en that aide of the house had not prominently brought for-
ward their opinions, they had not abated one jot of the
scriptural argument against these marriages. It was said
that in all other protestant eountries these marriages were
allowed, but, following out that argument to its legitimate
consequences, they must sanction marriage with a niece.
Mr. PIM thought that the measure would be detri-
mental to the best interests of society. With regard to
Ireland. he was satisfied it was not a poor man's question.
Re had never heard of such marriages occurring in Ireland,
but if there were any their number must be very limited.
In conclusion the hon. member expressed his intention of
opposing the bill.
Mr. LEATHAM felt sure that if this bill passed domestic
luippiness would he very much lessened. The women of
England had an instinctive dislike to such marriages as this
bill would legalize, and believed that their happiness would
be very much interfered with by its operation.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that the case of the poor man
which bad been cited in opposition to the bill was not in
print. Poor men seldom married deceased wives' sisters,
simply because they were rarely brought into contact. The
poor families were scattered far and wide in search of a
living, whereas in the middle and upper classes the wife's
sister was frequently a member of the family. As to the
fragment of canon law which was so much relied on, it
should he remembered that the canon law was nearly
abrogated in this country.
Mr.COLERIDGE, having expressed his satisfaction that
the question was not treated by the house as a party ques-
tion, proceeded to explain his reasons for supporting the
amendment of the hon. member for Northamptonshire.
(Hear, hear.) One result would certainly follow the
passing of the law, and that was that it would be im-
possible for any modest marriageable woman to
treat her sister's husband any longer as • brother.
(Hear, hear.) How could they deny that she would
be the proper parliamentary successor of her sister?
(Laughter.) Scotland was generally against the bill, and
Ireland alumet unanimously, and was he to be told that
fkoitchmen and Irishmen were not entitled to be heard on
the question? die believed that a large majority of
Englishmen were against it, and be knew that it was op-
posed by an overwhelming majority of Englishwomen.
Mr. HADFIELD supported the bill, which, he said,
was approved of by the great nonconformist body, while in
private life nothing was more common than for • dying
wife to implore her husband to take her sister as her
successor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that if there
was one case in which the law would prohibit marriages
-within certain degrees of affinity with emphatic refusal it
was this with a wife's sister. The rule should be that
the husband should treat the wife's sister as his own,
and the bill proposed would strike at the root of such
family relationships. The truth was that this question
was introduced by persons who sought a particular object,
unmindful that for their own purposes they were unsettling
the moat established institutions of society. As
•to the law being a grievance to the poor, the
clergymen in the most populous districts in
London and the provinces had informed him that these
marriages were not nearly so common amongst the poor ax
others with which the bill did not propose to deal. It was
true that those clergymen had told him of other con-
nexions amongst the poor which were much to be deplored ;
but what was the remedy? To improve their dwellings,
to give them more education, but not to show them that
they had only to infringe the law, and then get up an
association and agitation for the purpose of legalising their
infraction. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHAMBERS replied, and denied that the pro-
moters of the bill sought to lower the law to an incestuous
level. The changes be proposed had received the sanction
and approval of some of the most distinguished men in
England. The bill did no more, in declaring certain
breaches of the law to be not breaches, than the act of
1831.

The house divided—
Ayes
Now
The bill woe consequently thrown out.
THE GLEBE LANDS (SCOTLAND) DILL.