The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-04 00:00:00

CEASED WIFE.

Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE and several other Mem-
bers presented petitions, some in favour of, and others
against the Bill.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill, and
on the first clause being proposed,
Mr. GOULBURN said that he did not think that it
was wise to discuss a Bill too often, and he should
therefore offer no further opposition to it, and content
himself with merely offering a few observations as it
progressed.
Clauses 1 and 2 were then passed.
On the third clause being proposed,
Mr. GOULI3URN said that an alteration had been
introduced into the Bill since the second reading, the
effect of which was to prevent the validity of any mar-
riage with the sister of a deceased wife in any case when
the individuals had been convicted of adultery together.
Now, how could such a clause possibly operate, for he
would appeal to any gentleman in that House whether
there were not feelings in the heart of every female
which in ninety-nine cases out of every hundred would
prevent her from entering the witness-box and im-
peaching the honour of her own sister and her husband?
He only made this observation to show to what lengths
this relaxation of the law was leading them.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that this clause
had been introduced at the express desire of
persons high in the Church, and it was in-
tended to prevent that jealousy of feeling which might
possibly arise when a woman was resident under the
roof of her sister's husband. The only case that had ever
occurred of such a conviction of adultery had occurred
under the present repressive state of the law. In that
case the husband and wife respectively proceeded for a
divorce. They obtained it, and when the tie had been
dissolved the relationship was at an end, and the gentle-
man and lady who had before been brother and sister-in-
law, were openly married within three weeks after
the Act for the divorce had been obtained.
Mr. HOPE, in the absence of Mr. Roundel' Palmer,
rose to move the following amendment on the third
clause :—" That nothing in. this Act contained shall be
be deemed or construed, in any civil or ecclesiastical
court of this realm, to alter or in any wise affect any
doctrine, canon, or law ecclesiastical, of the United
Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of
Scotland, whereby the degrees of consanguinity and
affinity, within which marriage is now held to be pro-
hibited by the doctrine and discipline of the same
churches respectively are settled or defined; and no
clergyman, minister, or officer, of either of the said
churches shall be required or authorised, by virtue
of this Act, to solemnize or grant any license for solem-
nizing any marriage contrary to the doctrine or disci-
cipline of the church of which he is such clergyman,
inibister, or officer; nor shall any such clergyman,
minister, or officer, who may hereafter solemnize or
grant any license for solemnizing any such marriage, be
exempted, by virtue of this Act, from any spiritual or
ecclesiastical censure or punishment to which he would
by law be subject if this Act had not been passed."
Mr. S 1 UART WORTLEY said he had framed this
clause in order to meet the consciences of all parties.
He was, however, anxious to obtain the opinion of the
House upon this subject. As regarded the canons of
the Church, it was certain that the 99th canon prohi-
bited such marriages as were contrary to the word
of God; but before any man could be proceeded against
it would be necessary to prove that the marriage, for
which he was prosecuted, was contrary to the law of God.
The Hon. Gentlemen then read some passages from the
works of one of the highest dignitaries of the Church,
attaching but slight importance to these canons, and