The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-14 00:00:00

SISTER.

Mr. HEYWOOD moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's
sister or a deceased's wife's niece. Having touched upon
the historical part of the subject, the hon. member stated
that since 1831, when the act prohibiting these mar-
riages was passed, it was calculated that. 12,000 widow-
ers had married their deceased wife's sister, and therefore
allowing three children to each family, it gave 60,000
persons who were unjustly dealt with by the existing
law. It was said, however, that there was a large body
of ladies in this country who were opposed to such mar-
riazes, but he did not believe it ; he thought the
of England were quite disposed to leave the men to take
what course they liked best in the matter. (A
laugh.) The fact was, the existing law gave rise to
much immorality, because those who were prohibited
from marrying by the existing law did not hesitate to
cohabit together, particularly amongst the lower orders.
These marriages were legal on the continent and in
America., and it certainly argued ill for the
civilization of this country that we were behirn.;
almost the rest of the word in this respect. The
.Jews recognised these marriages ; so, indeed, did
the Scriptures, and there could be no doubt
that their prohibition was a curse to society. As, how-
ever, there was a great deal of prejudice in the northern
part of the kingdom upon this subject, he was quite
ready-to leave Scotland out of the bill altogether. The
origin of the prohibition could be traced to the Greek
Church. The Roman Church copied' it from
the Greek, and we had copied it from the
Romans ; but there was no competent authority for it
which men of sense ought to bow to, and since the pro-
hibition was contrary alike to the law of conscience and
the law of nature, he hoped he should be permitted to
bring in his bill.
Mr. KINNAIRD seconded the motion.

Sir F. THESIGER opposed the introduction of the
bill. The question was not new, either to the house
or the country-; -it had been thoroughly- discussed, on
former occasions, in both Houses of Parliament,
and the details now offered in justification of reopening
the question were insignificant and inconclusive. He
agreed that this was a woman's question, and he believed
the feeling of the ladies of England was opposed to any
alteration in the existing law. No less than 11,000
women petitioned the Queen against the change when
the subject was last before Parliament; and believing that
the same feeling of opposition still prevailed he must
resist this attempt to reopen the question. The com-
mission which formerly sat upon this subject permitted
themselves to become the instruments of those who
were favourable to an alteration of the law, and
who had been mainly instrumental in procuring
the appointment of the commission, and the conse-
quence was, the preponderence of the evidence was in
favour of a change in the law. The majority of the wit-.
nesses, however, were directly and personally interested
in obtaining the charge, but the other side of the ques-

tion, appealing not to a class but to everybody, it
met tie.: fate of everybody's Lt.siness nobody
looked after it. There could be no doubt, however,
that both the jealousy of the laity and the clegry was
averse to any change in the law. It was incorrect to say
this was a poor man's question. Had it been merely
a poor man's question he feared it would not
have been taken up with so much spirit. The
fact was, however, that marriages of this descrip-
tion Lad been exceedingly unfrequent amongst the
lower classes. He objected to resorting to legisla-
tion for the sake of re!ieving parties who had knowingly
violated the law, not in ignorance of the law, but with
their eyes open, and fully aware of the illegality of the
marriage they had contracted. He deeply regretted the
diversity of opinion which prevailed upon the religious
part of this question ; his own opinion was that the 18th
chapter of Leviticus directly prohibited these marriages,
and, therefore, so far from the Jewish law being in favour
of these marriages, it was diametrically opposed to them.
The existing state of things previously by which the law
was evaded was most discreditable. He thought the
hon. gentleman's arguments were•inconsistent with him-
self. The hon. gentleman said that the Divine law was
meant to restrain marriages within certain degrees of
consanguinity, as distinguished from affinity, and he
referred to the examples of Germany and America,
where, he said, a blind and enlarged 'view was taken and
acted upon regarding these marriages. He (Sir F. The-
siger) confessed he was not at all inclined to adopt any
such enlarged or liberal views, and professed a strict
adherence to the law of God. - (Hear, hear.) What
would the hen. gentleman do with the case of Scotland?
The hon. member proposed that Scotland should be
excepted from the operation of the bill. But why so I
If the bill was good for the other portions of the United
Kingdom, why should it not be equally good for Scot
lead ? The fact was, that the hon. gentleman knew
that the feeling of the people of Scotland revolted against
marriages of this sort; antrhe knew he would have no
prospect of getting the bill read a second time if he
included Scotland in it. He (Sir F. Thesiger)
hoped, however, that the Scottish members, who were
generally distinguished for their caution, would not be
deceived by the omission of Scotland from the bill ; for
it was quite clear that, if the measure were once to pass
without Scotland, there could be no doubt but that it
would be extended afterwards to that part of the empire.
The hon. member had also proposed, with the view of
disarming oppoition, to introduce a provision to pre-
vent clergymen from being exposed to inconvenience by
refusing to perform marriage ceremonies under the act.
This showed the weakness of the hon. gentleman's case,
and that he had misgivings as to such marriages not
being prohibited I,y Divine Jaw. Ho (Sir F. Thesiger)
founded his objections to the bid on the ground that the
marriages which it proposed to sanction would be cr -
trary to Divine law—that the bill, if carried, would
deeply affect the happiness and comfort of numerous
families throughleat the United Kingdom, introduce do-
mestic discord and discomfort, and be destructive of
those fine feelings of affection with which the wife's
nearest k'n 4311.211 t to be regarded by the husband.
Mr. BOWYER denied that the Jewish marriage law
was at all binding upon Christians, which he thought
would lead us into all sorts of absurdities. These mar-
riages had never been prohibited by the common or the
statute law of England till Lord Lyndhurst's law of
1835. It was true that the statute of Henry VIII.
prohibited all marriages that were contrary to the law
of God ; but it still remained to be proved that
these particular marriages were in that predicament.
As a general principle, restrictions on marriage
were unwise, and as there were large bodies of dissenters
and Roman Catholics in England who did not admit
that these marriages were prohibited by divine law, he
maintained that this house ought to consult their views.
Mr. E. BALL quoted a long list of eminent men
who denied that these marriages were a violation of
the divine law, and he contended that' the feelings
of the people of England were in favour of a change
in the law. .
Mr. M. MILNES contended that large classes of the
people were anxious for the alteration of the law ; and
that the alteration would not interfere with the con-
scientious convictions of those who took a different view
of the question.

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE contended that Mr. Bowyer
had been guilty of a transparent fallacy in his argument
that the common law of England did not forbid marriage
vGitli a deceased wife's sister. The truth was that the
common law took no cognisance of the law of marriage
at ail, but left that whole question to the decision of the
statute law. He was opposed to the introduction of the
bill ; and ho found in the restrictions contained in its
provisions sufficient reasons for its rejection.
Mr. SPOONER would vote for the introduction of
the bill, without pledging himself to its details. He did
so because he considered the present state of the law was
fraught with the most immoral consequences among ,the
lower classes. The only justification of the present law
would be that it was in accordauce with the Divine law ;
and as he did not believe that such was the case, he was
for the alteration of the law. At the same time he was
opposed to the marriage of a wife's niece, and to the ex-
emption of Scotland from the operation of the measure.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND contended that the prohibition
of these marriages was of Divine authority, and that the
Church never had a doubt on the subject till the fourth
century, when the Pope introduced the_ question of dis-
pensation. He objected to this as a sneaking, half-and-
half measure ; he called upon the hod, mover to deal
openly with the question—to get rid of all questions of
affinity, and "marry your grandmother like ,a man."
Admiral WALCOTT believed that the change now
proposed would unhinge society,the:Word of God hav-
ing pronounced against such marriages; and must there-
fore oppose the motion.
Viscount PALMERSTON—Sir, I wish to state that,
having paid great attention to this debate, I shall cer-
tainly give my vote in favour of the -motion of my hon.
friend. (Hear, hear.) I think that this is not a ques:,.
tionof the law of God. I hold that Parliament has
settled that by the Act of 1835, for of course it can
never be supposed that Parliament *would have legalised
all marriages which up to that period-_had been pro;
scribed, if Parliament had been of opinion' that there
was such a fundamental objection to those marriages.
(Hear, hear.) It' certainly appears to me that this case
is one to which you may apply the quotation, "Nil pro-
aunt leges sine moribus"—that is to say, that laws are of
no avail if the moral feeling of the country does not go
in unison with time law. Now, it seems to be established
and admitted that the moral feeling of the community
at large is not with this law—that the law, in fact, is
not obeyed, and that a great number of persons, not con-
ceiving themselves to commit any moral offence, do con-
tract marriages which the law prohibits. (Hear.) That
is not a state of things which ought to exist, and, not
being of opinion that there is any moral objection to the
contracting of these marriages, and, believing that the
law as it stands is the cause of a great deal of misery and
social evil, eepecally among the middle and lower classes
of time community, I shall with great pleasure give my
vote for the motion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr.WALPOLE said the noble viscount's main reason
for supporting the motion seemed to consist in the act of
1835. This was the first time he had heard from his
noble friend that the law of Parliament could determine
what was the law of God.

ViscountPALMERSTON—I did not say that the act
ofParliainent could determine that; Isaid the act showed
what Parliament conceived it to he.

Mr. WALPOLE hoped the noble viscount would not
object to he set right as to what the act of Parliament
-was intended to do. The act made no marriages legal--
it simply'raid that those marriages which had been con-
tracted should not be voided in the parties lifetime ; in
other words, all it said was that those marriages should
be placed o❑ the same footing as marriages before that
act Were placed, if either of the patties were dead.' It
'lid bQ in.ordt that, there -having -been t► difference and

dispute as to the law up to that time, children should I
not be illegitimised by any consequence resulting from
those marriages, when the Legislature itself was pressed
:o alter the law. But it had always been considered by
legal authorities in this and the other house that, instead
3f that act declaring what the law of God was in this
country, it left to the ecclesiastical courts the powers of
punishing the parties who contracted such marriages,
although it legitimised the children. The noble viscount's
second reason for supporting the introduction of the bill
was, that the law was disobeyed, and could not be en-
forced ; that it could not be maintained because it was
inconsistent with the public opinion and feeling of the
country. Now did the noble viscount, sitting in the
high place which he oecupied, seriously consider the
consequences of that proposition ? Did he bear in mind
that, according to the report, there were numbers of mar-
riages contracted with brothers' widows, with a mother
and daughter in succession and even, he deplored to say,
leading to morally incestuous intercourse ? If once we
were to admit the doctrine that, because parties had vio-
lated the law of the land, which he believed also to be
the law of God, therefore the law must be altered, lie
said there was nothing whetever to keep the bonds of
society t ,gether. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He could
not refrain from entering his pi otast against such a doc-
trine, and he would urge on the noble viscount, not pursu-
ing the subject further, to consider the effect it would have
on the country if this question of marriage—the most
solemn, the most sacred, and most interesting that could
be conceived to the whole community, should be con-
stantly ventilated in Parliament, and agitated out of
doors, contrary to the feelings of the people both of
Scotland and Ireland, as they had .been told, contrary
to the feelings also of a large, if not the largest portion,
of the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) The effect
of a change in the law would be to introduce a state of
social relations entirely different to any heretofore exist-
ing in this country, so that instead of the husband and
wife's sister being able to enjoy ee.ch other's society with-
out a shadow of suspicion or scandal being cast on their
intercourse, because the husband felt that there was a
moral bar existing, which prevented an immoral thought
from arising in his mind, the parties would stand to each
other in the relation of aliens and strangers.
Mr. G. 11. MOORE stated, in opposition to Mr.
Bowyer, that the feelings of the Roman Catholic popu-
lation were unanimously and strongly opposed to any
alteration of the law.

Mr. COBDEN contended that the opponents of this
motion had allowed their case to go by default. He
knew of his own knowledge many persons of the highest
respectability who had gone to Germ'Any and married
their deceased wife's sister, and then returned and lived
in this country without losing caste. This was a proof
of the evasion of the law and an argument for its altera-
tion.

Mr. HEYWOOD replied, after which the house di.
vided.
For the bill B7
Against it
Majority for the bill
EDUCATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN IN

THE LONDON GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT.

WHITEHALL, INIARcu 13.

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to
he passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, constituting and appointing
the Right Honourable Sir Charles Wood, Bart. ; Rear-
Admiral Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley, C.B. ;
Rear-Admiral Henry Eden ; Captain Peter Richards,
C.B. ; Captain Alexander Milne ; and Sir Robert Peel,
Bart. ;—tO be her Majesty's Commissioners for executing
the office of Lord High Admiral of the said United King-
dom of Great- Britain and Ireland, an,i the Dominions,
Islands, and Territories thereunto belonging.
CROWN-OFFICE, MARCH 13.

MEMBERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THE PRESENT PARLIA-

ISIENT

Borough of Athlone.—William Keogh, Esq., her Ma-
jesty's Attorney-General for Ireland.
Borough of Dudley.—Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, of
Pynes, in the county of Devon, Bart., in the room of John
Benbow, Esq., deeease:l.
County of Forfar.--Adam Duncan Haldane (commonly
called Visccunt Duncan), one of the Lords Commissioners
of the Treasury.

Burghs of Montrose.—William Edward Baxter, Esq.,
merchant, Dundee, in the room of Joseph Home, Esq.,
deceased.

Borough of Ennis.—John David Fitz Gerald, Esq., her
Majcsly's Solicitor-General for Ireland.
Borough cf Barnstaple.—George Stucky Buck, of Hart-
I tnd Abbey, Esq., in the room of John Llwrie, Eiq.,
whosa election for the said borough has been declared void.
ST. JAMES'S PALACE, MAncii 10.

The Queen has been pleased, on the nomination of the
Right Honourable Lord Foley, to appoint William Agnew
Pope, Esq., one of her Majesty's Honourable Corps of
Gentlemen-at-Arms, vice Pyrke, retired.
BOARD OF TRADE, WHITEHALL, MARCH 12.
The Right Honourable the Lords of the'Committee of
PriVy Council for Trade and Plantations have received,
through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, copy of
a despatch from her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in China,
reporting that the local authorities at Amoy have granted
to ships under the British flag the right to carry on the
coasting trade from that port to the various ports in China.
BOARD. OF TRADE, WHITEHALL, MARCH 13.

The Right Hon. the Lords of the Committee of Privy
Council for Trade and Plantations have received a despatch
from her Majesty's Consul at New York; enclosing two
Notices to Mariners issued by the United States Light-
house Boardl copies of which are subjoined.
(Copy.)
NOTICE TO MARINERS.

Lighthouse at Tucker's Beach, Little Egg Harbour, N.J.
On or about the first day of June next (1855), a fixed
white light, varied by flashes, of the fourth order of the
system of Fresnel, will be substituted for the present fixed
red light at Tucker's Beach Lighthouse, near the entrance
to Little Egg Harbour, N.J.
The light will be exhibited at an elevation of 50 feet
above the level of the sea ; will illuminate the entire sea
horizon and the approaches to Little Egg Harbour, and
should be seen, under ordinary states of the atmosphere,
from a height of 15 feet above the water, at a distance of
124 nautical, or 14A statute miles.
The tower is white.
The approximate position is—
Latitude, 39 deg. 30 min. 17 sec. N;
Longitude, 74 deg. 16 min. 43 sec. W.
Due public notice will be given of the day upon which
the change will be made.
By order of the Lighthouse Board.
(Signed) JAMES S. BIDDLE,
L. H. Inspector, Fourth District.
Philadelphia, Feb. 7, 1855.

(Copy•)
NOTICE TO MAP,INERS.

LIGHTHOUSE IN N.W. PASSAGE, KEY WEST, FLORIDA.

This lighthouse, recently erected, is situated on the
Western Bank, forming the N.W. channel, in 6 feet ordi-
nary low water. _ _ _

Its position may be approximately hid down by the fol-
lowing magnetic bearings and distances ;
Sand Key Lighthouse, S. 11 deg. 02 min. east, distant
10 nautical miles.
Key West Lighthouse, S. 57 deg. east, dist. 6.83 nautical
miles.
N. W. Bar Buoy, N. 20 dog. 46 min east, dist. 1.31
nautical miles.

The structure is founded on piles. The keeper's dwell-
ing is 23 feet above the water, and is surrounded by the
lantern.

The foundati,m is painted of dark colour; the dwelling
and lantern white.

The illuminating apparatus is a Fresnel sth Order, illu-
minating 270 deg. of the horizon, and showingafixed white
_ _ . _ .

-The focal plane is 40 feet above the sea level ; the light
should therefore be seen, in clear weather, from the deck
of a vessel 10 feet above the watar at a distance of 11A
nautical miles, or about 10 miles beyond the Bar.
Tho light will be exhibited for the first time o❑ the sth
of March prox., and will continue to be exhibited from
sunset to sunrise on each succeeding night till further
notice.