The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-14 00:00:00

OtitningEit

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1849.

Availing himself of the Easter recess, Mr. Con-
DEN seems to be making a kind of political :pilgri-
mage throughout Yorkshire, for the purpose of
cultivating a personal acquaintance with his consti-
tuents, and of forwarding the agitation in favour of
financial retrenchment. On Wednesday he was at
Wakefield—on Friday he was at Leeds—neither the
Coy-et Newsman nor the Parliamentary Gossip
can conjecture where he may happen ,to be on
Y.;londay. We like the principle on which these
provincial peregrinations have originated—a prin-
ciple of candour and good-will between the
possessors of the elective franchise and their
representatives. The periodical visitations of Mr.
WARD to Sheffield, and the continual epitome of
'the discussions in the House of Commons by
Colonel THOMPSON, are evidences of the same honesty
of conviction and of the same manliness of deport-
ment. They carry us back to the manners and cus-
tem sof good old ANDREW MARVEL. And hence we
'like them. Mr. CoBDEN appears to have a decided
liking for them too, if we may judge from his recent
wanderings in the West Riding. He evinces a very
creditable solicitude to unbosom himself to that vast
rYstiturtncy which honoured him so conspicuously
no minatioolim,
when and returning him, unknown to
him ,elf, h e was endeavouring, after improving
thr, Constitution of his country, to recruit his
rown upon the continent. The electors of
Yorkshire are, of course, M high good humour at
a course of conduct so peculiarly favourable to their
own interests. They welcome their representative
with an enthusiasm having reference partly to his
bygone achievements in the destruction of monopoly,
and partly to his anticipated successes in the reduc-
tion of the national expenditure.
Several other veteran Reformers have, as a matter
of policy not less than as a matter of friendship, ac-
companied the Chieftain of the League upon his ex-
edition against the profligate squanderers of
the public money and the parasitical hangers-on
of Government. Conspicuous among these is, of
course, the j7dus Achates of the ex-Member for Stock-
port, the Honourable Gentleman the representative
of Manchester. We think, however, that the force of
th,:, remarks which fell from the lips of that promi-
nent colleague of Mr. COBDEN would have been very
materially increased had he appeared before the
banquetters of Wakefield less in the character of a
Walking Advertisement. We say this plainly and
!Imply, because Mr. BRIGHT could scarcely have pro.
claimed more clearly the motive of his observations upon
the general tone and principles of the London journals
if he had
walked meekly iota the dining-room, in the

footsteps of the Member for the West Riding, with a
couple of boards slung over his shoulders, like those
rather dilapidated gentlemen who perambulate the
streets of our metropolis, and whom Mr. DICKENS
has facetiously christened by the name of "animated
sandwiches." Knowing as everybody present did so
well the relation in which the Honourable Gentle-
man stood towards the newspaper upon which his
eulogiums were lavished so unstintingly, his advice
savoured considerably more of the Puff
Direct than of the Puff Collateral, or of the
Puff Oblique, or of the Puff Collusive. It was plain,
honest speaking—as plain and honest as the pane-
gyrics squandered upon his ribbons, and laces, and
knick-knackeries by the pedlar ADTOLYCIIS. It
would, perhaps, in some measure hare deprived the
observations of Mr. BRIGHT of some of their rheto-
rical brass if he had coupled his allusions to the organ
in which his principles (and his pocket) are so pecu-
liarly interested, with sentiments not altogether ex-
pressive of political ingratitude. In the admiration
of an upstart advocate, the old supporter of more
than contemporary duration should scarcely be over-
looked so cavalierly. But Mr. BRIGIIT acts mani-
festly upon ',the recommendation of the ballad—first
to be off with the old love, and then to be on with the
new. His opinions are not so staunch and immove-
able, neither are his partialities so lasting or consis-
tent as to enable him (when the hints of traffic whisper
to the contrary) to preserve that honourable recollec-
tion of past services which are best befitting the reputa-
tion of a public character. The Hon. CHARLES VILLIERS
although the Apostle of Free-Trade doctrines, at a
time when to be a Free-Trader was to be a political
outcast, was forgotten or depreciated in the more
gaudy celebrity of some of the succeeding assailants
of Protection. It can, therefore, be no marvel that
the journal which was the organ of Free Trade
during the same perilous and probationary period,
which continued uninterruptedly to enunciate the
views of the Free-Traders from the opening of the
crusade against the selfishness of the upholders
of the imposts upon foreign corn down to the
moment when the victory was achieved under the
leadership of Sir ROBERT PEEL, —it is scarcely
surprising, we repeat, that if the first advocate of
Free-Trade in Parliament is contemned, the first ad-
vocate of Free-Trade in the Press should be slighted.
Especially if E. s. d. direct the enthusiasm of any
man like the Hon. Gentleman the representative of
Manchester in a totally opposite direction. ADIERIGO
VEsruccl acquired all the credit of discovering
the double continent of the western hemisphere. Mr.
VILLIERS may rather congratulate himself upon
being numbered in the same category with COLUMBUS.
And we can console ourselves under similar circum-
stances with the remembered destinies of inventors,
navigators, and politicians. lfnus seminat, alter metat
—so says the old proverb, and the old proverb lies
not in so saying. Conscious that no oversight has
ever led, or ever can lead, in our instance, to ter-
giversation—sustained by the knowledge that no
contumely or ingratitude has ever conduced, or can
ever conduce, to the dereliction of our political prin-
ciples—we can afford to watch with indifference the
ungracious treatment of men whose reputation we
have assisted to disseminate, and whose views we have
not shrunk from advocating in the hour of gloom and
depression.

There is a strong and general feeling throughout
the entire country in favour of the immediate abo-
lition of the absurd and useless prohibitions against
marriage with the sister or niece of a deceased wife.
All classes are equally opposed to the impolitic res-
trictions. The staunchest Churchman objects as strongly
as the enthusiastic Dissenter. Hundreds of beneficed
clergymen have affixed their signatures along with
those of Dissenting ministers, to petitions praying the
Legislature to take the subject into its immediate
consideration. Nothing more is required than that
the attention of Parliament should be directed to a
law which has totally failed to attain the objects for
which it was enacted—which, in the emphatic words
of the " Commissioners appointed to inquire into the
state and operation of the law of marriage, as relating
to the prohibited degrees of affinity, and to marriages
solemnized abroad, or in the British colonies," " had
not generally deterred parties from forming such con-
nexions." Nothing can be more injurious, in a
public point of view, than any enactment
calculated to bring any considerable body of the
people into open and undisguised hostility to the law.
This is more especially the case when those who are
thus placed in the position of law-breakers are men
"of unimpeachable character and religious habits,"
as the report of the Commissioners states many of
those who have deliberately disregarded the restric-
tions imposed upon what they, in their consciences,
believed to be a matter of social right,
that was not only not forbidden by any
Divine law, but was especially sanctioned
and encouraged, nay, in some instances com-
manded. We say commanded advisedly—for
we find, under the Jewish dispensation, a law,
declaring that a man shall take to his wife the widow
of his deceased brother, and it is universally acknow-

ledged that there can be no reason alleged against the
marriage with a deceased wife's sister that does not
operate with additional force against the connexion
with a brother's widow.
We have long since shown that the 18th verse of
the 18th chapter of Leviticus does not in the slight-
est degree appply to the question. That was
only directed (at a period when poligamy was
lawful) against such a marriage during the lifetime
of the first wife. " Neither shalt thou take a wife to
her sister to vex her . . . beside the other in her
lifetime," were the words of the inspired Lawgiver,
and it is palpable, that if the union was to be for-
bidden at all times, and under all circumstances,
there would have been no limitation whatsoever.
The addition of the latter words may, therefore, be
adduced as the very strongest argument in favour
of its validity, or, at least, that it is not in any degree
malum in se, or opposed to the Divine law—the
law of natural morality. And yet we find this very
text relied on, and adduced by the bigots who, not
satisfied with perfect religious freedom for themselves,
would impose fetters on the consciences of others,
who would deprive their brethren of that liberty
which they so strenuously insist upon for themselves.
There being, therefore, no Divine command, either
directly or indirectly, prohibiting such marriages—
there being no consanguinity which might prove
injurious in a physical or ethnological point of view—
no danger of the deterioration of the offspring, we
contend that no man or body of men have a right to
make restrictive laws, affecting the freedom of others,
and depriving them of that social liberty which is the
birthright of every free-born citizen.
It has been said, that if the marriages were sanc-

tioned and rendered perfectly legal some inconve-
nience might result—that unions might take place
which are now prevented, and that second families
might demand some portion of that care and atten-
tion which would otherwise be exclusively devoted to
those who had been deprived of maternal solici-
tude and protection. Now we directly and unhe-
sitatingly join issue on this point. We contend
that the social inconvenience is altogether on the other
side—that the existing law occasions tenfold greater
injury to the semi-orphans than would arise if there
were no enactment whatsoever on the statute-book on
the subject, and if all parties were allowed perfect free-
dom to act as they deemed fitting.
There is no law whatsoever against second mar-
riages. " That courageous monogamist," Dr.
PaimuosE," would scarcely obtain many followers
at the present day. Second marriages will take
place, in the great majority of instances, where a
young and healthy man is deprived of the comfort
and companionship of an affectionate spouse, more
father
father especially if there are infant children requiring atten-
tion
compelled
could bestow
d
toea;rn a support for
11 more especially
if
that which
fh
t no
ro w a
those children by .13 daily labour. These second
marriages, if with a perfectra t s nger, *
are proverbially
unfortunate for the former children. They will be
always regarded with some degree of jealousy
by their stepmother. If she has children
of her own, she views them as intruders upon the
love she fancies should be exclusively lavished upon
those dearest to herself. They are to a certain extent
rivals—what is given to one must in some degree be
withheld from the others, and invidious feelings are
but too frequently excited in the father's mind, and in-

juriouscomparisons instituted between the offenders and
the more favoured—between the " IsnmsELs" and the
" Islace The case is not much better if there should

be no issue of the second marriage. The disappointed
wife will probably entertain a feeling of envy against
her more fortunate predecessor, and this will very
naturally turn into an antipathy against her chil-
dren, la ho are regarded rather as the offspring of a
favoured rival than as the children of a much loved
husband. The condition of the unfortunate infants
is sufficiently painful in either case. It is, however,
less likely to be so if the person to whose care they
were about to be confided had been nearly related to
their deceased parent, and inclined to cherish them
for her sake. Who would regard them more
tenderly than her sister, who had learned
to love them before she contemplated a mar-
riage with their father, and entering upon a closer
relationship ? Now, the effect of the prohibition has
been either to deprive the children of an aunt's care,
or to force that aunt into an illicit connexion with
their father—either to drive her from under his roof,
or to bring about, if not marriage, at least cohabi-
tation. Which, then, is the most desirable, to have her
the lawful and recognised wife of their father, or the
despised victim ? In which case is she likely to regard
them wiih greater affection ?
In every point of view, then, the restriction is un-
just and impolitic. It is an unfair infringement upon
natural liberty, without any possible benefit to any
parties. It is a great moral and social evil, that should
be redressed without a moment's delay. The pro.
hibition should not only be removed with re-
spect to all future marriages of the kind, but all that
have taken place since the passing of the 5 and 6
Will. IV., c. 54, should be forthwith legalised, so as to
subject either of the parties to the penalties of bigamy
if they should contract another marriage, and to ren-
der the offspring thereof perfectly legitimate.