The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-20 00:00:00

RAILWAYS

t MPERIAL P.A. EILIAME.NT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
MARRIAGES OF AFFINITY BILL.
Mr. M. MI LNES 'moved the second reading of this bill
Colonel LYGON said on former occasions bills to a
similar effect had been submitted to the house, but
they had always been put , down for discussion at a
later period of the session. At the present time
there were many members connected with Irish and
Scotch constituencies who had not yet arrived in
London, and as the question involved is the measure
created great interest in those two countries, he thought it
unfair to bring it on for discussion till they were present,
and had an opportunity of fully considering and discussing
it. So far as regarded the principle of the measure, he
considered that it would lead to endless litigation and
confusion. If they took away the prohibition which
prevented a man from marrying his wife's sister, he
could not see that they could with justice maintain the
prohibition which prevented a man from marrying his wife's
niece. If they once broke ground, and swept away one,
they must go on until they swept away all prohibitions at
present on the statute book. If it was argued that there
was not in the Old or New Testaments anything
which prevented a man from marrying his wife's
sister, then they mast hold, upon the same ground,
that there was nothing in either of them which prohibited
the other prohibitions as regarded affinity, and must come
to the conclusion that the prohibition against a man
marrying his wife's nieco or his daughter-in-law was as
unbinding as the one preventing him from marrying his
wife's sister. It has been said that the Bishops of
London and Durham had signified their approval of the
removal of the prohibition as regarded marriage with
a deceascd wife's sister; but though at one time he believed
those right reverend prelates had expressed themselves
somewhat in that manner, they had since changed their
opinion, and were opposed to the removal of the prohibition.
He contended that the Act of 1835 did net bear the con-
struction put upon it in respect of these marriages; and
whatever might be stated in respect of them, he was certain
that very few of such marriages existed among the poorer
classes. (Hear, hear.) He had the statement on this sub-
ject of an hon. gentleman who was once an ornament of
that house, Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood, who
said that he had made inquiries in the parishes of St. Mar-
garet and St. John, and he had found but very few.
Mr. MONCKTON MlLNES—Seventy-four.
Colonel LYGON—If there were 74, they ought to have
more satisfactory evidence on the point than the statements
of an anonymous society. Sir William Page Wood had
only found two such cases, and two others had he believed
been sent him since. As regarded the petitions which had
been presented in favour of the measure, it was easy to
multiply these when two guineas were freely allowed for
every four hundred signatures obtained ; but petitions so
got up were no criterion as to the feeling of the public on
the subject, and were unworthy of any attention. He
trusted, therefore, that a further examination of the mea-
sure that house would reuse to sanction, and prevent at
once all further discussion on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLLIER considered that the burden of proof lay
on those who opposed this measure. As to a men being
disqualified from marrying any particular woman the bur-
den of proof lay upon those who forbid the banns, and not
upon the parties who wished the, marriage consummated.
Those marriages were sanctioned in every country in
Europe except their own, and putting aside what was
called the moral instinct of parties, he would ask, was
there any prohibition in the Scriptures against them.
There was none in the New Testament, but then they
were thrown back upon a chapter in Leviticus, and
to one verse in that chapter. But that one verse did not
bear out the argument of the opponents of this measure, for
it simply stated that a man should not mat ry his wife's
sister during his wile's lifetime, but it did not say that he
should bo prevented from doing so after his wife's death.
(Hear, hear.) And besides, they had it in evidence taken
on this subject, and given by one of the chief Rabbis in
London, that the Jews were in the habit of constantly con-
tracting such marriages. It was said that the apostolic
canons prohibited these marriages. But the apostolic
canons prohibited many marriages which even bishops
themselves had since contracted. They, for instance, for-
bade bishops to marry with servant girls. (Laughter.)
But these restrictions were now for the most
part disregarded. Therefore these apostolic canons
being the chief stock in trade of the opponents of
this measure, he thought they gave them bat little ground
to stand upon. (Hear.) There being, therefore, no prohibi-
tion in the Scriptures against such marriages, he could see no
reason for the opposition to this measure. It was not meant
by the passing of it to compel the contraction of such mar-
riages, but all that was intended was to permit those
who wished to contract them to follow the instinct of
their nature and their feelings, and do so. (Hear, hear.)
If they looked at the case in another light, they would see
the impropriety of maintaining these prohibitions. It
was always inconvenient, and often dangerous, to maintain
on the statute book prohibitions of this nature, which it
was well known would be disregarded by many, and it ap-
peared to him therefore improper to maintain a prohibition
which was antagonistic to the religion, and the moral sense
of a large portion of the community. Among the
higher classes these marriages were contracted,
and were considered by them binding by the law
of God, but among the poorer classes the case
was different. Among them it was well known that, on
the death of the wife, the sister would take her place in
the family, and if the marriage between her and her
sister's husband were prohibited, they would live together
in a state of concubinage. That was the inevitable effect of
the prohibition, and considering it not falsified by the Old
or New Testament, and not at variance with the principle of
civil and religious liberty, he cordially gave his support to
the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. BLACKBURNE opposed the measure, and
fotoaded his opposition to it on the 16th and two following
verses of the 18th chapter of Leviticus. He trusted thehouse
would throw out the measure upon the second reading, and
that they would never have such a disagreeable subject
again before them.
Mr. HEADLAM said he had voted in favour of this
measure ever since he had had a seat in the house, and on
the present occasion he had seen no reason to alter his opi-
nion. Me would not go into the theological arguments on
the subject, as he considered that house was not the place
for theological discussion, and all they had to do was to
apply to the question that principle based upon justice and
morality which guided the discussions of that house. There
could be no doubt that in former years these marriages
were tolerated and recognised in this country to all intents
and purposes. They prevailed throughout all classes of
society, from the highest to the lowest, and there was not
an atom of proof of an instance of any one of them ever
having been set aside. During all that time when such
marriages were contracted, and when the contraction of
them was common and universal, was there the slightest
evidence that any injury had been inflicted on morality or
religion in consequence of their prevalence ? There was no
such evidence. Had they been pregnant with evil or scan-
dal to morality or religion, no doubt they would
have had bishops and clergymen denouncing them from
the pulpit, but the pulpit never gave out any loud Bound
on the subject, and there was never heard any complaint
or murmur at their prevalence. (Hear, hear.) The object
of the bill of 1835 was to establish the validity of such mar-
riages which had previously taken place, unless proceed-
ings were taken again-t the parties so married within a
certain time, and t 3 legalise such marriages in future, un-
less objections were taken to them within a certain period.
That was in effect legalising such marriages. But objec-
tions having been taken to the second clause, which legal-
ised such marriages in future, that clause was withdrawn
in order to secure the passing of the other one legalising
such marriages up to a certain time, the house having at
the same time clearly indicated its favourable opinion as to
the legality of such marriages. While, however, previous
to that act there had been no complaint, ever since there
had been a continued agitation for an extension of that act,
and the legalising all such marriages in time to come, while
at the same time, no man who wished to contract a mar-
riage with his deceased wife's sisterwasofdetoerrped from
G d
doing so, so, believing that there was no law
r
inn him from doing so. (Hears :) e fact was, they
had no argument with qa
wia to meet a man who wished to
contract such a marriage as to the illegality; and believing
that the passing of the measure would do away with a great
deal of inconvenience, and prevent a considerable amount
of immorality, he cordially supported the second reading of
the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL opposed the measure. He considered
that the same restriction which prevented a man from
having two wives, prevented him from marrying his de -
ceased wife's sister. That was the legitimate argument to
be drawn from the prohibition, as stated in Leviticus; and
the bigamist might with the same justice reason that, as
his conscience and his instinct told him there was nothing
in Scripture to prevent him having two wives, he was not
going against the doctrine of Scripture in following that
instinct and have two wives. He did not believe that the
passing of this measure would be the means of satisfying
public feeling and opinion in respect to the marriage ques-
tion ; for if they passed the measure they would set the
whole kingdom a thinking who they might marry and who
they might not. (Laughter.) If he was about to found a
new republic, he might make such a law, but in the mean-
time he would move that the bill be read a second time that
day six months.
Mr. BALL having seconded the amen.dment,
Sir G. GREY said he would not go into the theological
argument, but he considered, from all the evidence they had
before them on the subject, that they might with propriety
)
make some relaxation in the present law. (Hear,
He concurred in the able arguments which hadalready
been urged in favour of the measure, but he must say in
a social point of view it was not proper that this subject
should year after year come up before Parliament for
cussion. (Hear.) He thought the hon..gen_tleman. Who
.anxious for
had brought forward the measure was. justified_ in bnnging
it forward on this occasion, considering as he no doubt
Would be
did that there was a large portion of the public
such a measure passing, but at the same time
fraileht with much disadvantage toLA keep public opinion
agitated year after year on the tee queation, and he
hoped they would at once come to a final decision respect-
it. (Hear.)
cautioned the house against disturbing Mr. WALPOLE
the marriage law,
which had been the same ever since the
introduction of Christianity into the country. It had been
uniform and consistent ever since, not only in England but
also in Scotland and in Ireland, and as there was no law
which had so raised the character of woman and given her
that place which she ()tight to hold in the social scale,
he cautioned them
.against interfering with it. (Hear.)
He argued that religion was a matter which ought not to
be needlessly brought into discussion in that house, but he
hesitated not to say that in all the laws, civil and sacred,
they would find it laid down that these marriages are pro-
hibited, and say what they might there was no question
that a man was prohibited from marrying his sister-in- law
upon the same principle that a woman was prohibited from
marrying her brother- in-law. (Hear.) The relationship was
the same, and the prohibition was equally strong in both
oases. He found, on looking at the list of prohibited mar-
riages, now 30 in number, that 20 out of the 30 were mar-
riages of affinity, Now, was it intended by this bill to le-
galise marriages of affinity? They knew well the at empt
to do that 'would be going in the teeth of the Scriptural
prohibition, but would not the legalisation proposed have
the effect of lowing the woman, ilk oomparison to the map,