The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-28 00:00:00

litti,*-#llttrflaa

tme
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1849.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY'S Bill for the amendment
of the law of marriage, by removing the absurd and
useless prohibition against marriage with the sister or
niece of a deceased wife, was yesterday read the first
time in the House of Commons, and the second
reading is fixed for Tuesday, the 13th March. The
Right _Hon. and Learned Gentleman is entitled to
much credit for the clear and able manner in which
he brought the subject under the consideration of the
House, and the unanswerable arguments adduced in
support of his views, when asking leave to introduce
the measure. The Report of the Commissioners ap-
pointed " to inquire into the state and operation of tha
law of marriage, as relating to the prohibited de-
gree of affinity, and to marriages solemnized abroad
or in the British colonies," was perfectly conclusive
on the subject. It removed the only grounds on
which restrictive enactments could be justified. It
showed that the Divine law was not in any degree
violated, that no social inconvenience was occasioned,
that the restriction only led parties of the highest
moral character, honest and worthy citizens, delibe-
rately to oppose a law which most unnecessarily inter-
fered with that civil and religious liberty to which, as
Englishmen, they felt themselves to be entitled.
The report proves this to be the case ; it says that
"among the parties contracting these marriages, since
as well as before the Act of 1835, there are to be
found many persons of station, and property, and of
unimpeachable character and religious habits." It is
no light or trivial matter to bring persons of this
description into open and undisguised disobedience
to the law. It is an evil of the greatest magnitude.
The law should be respected not merely for the pe-
nalties with which its violation may be attended, but
still more for the general assent to its propriety. But
in this case that general assent is altogether wanting.
A large majority of the people recognise the absolute
inutility of such a provision, and the only penalty falls
upon the innocent and helpless offspring, who are
unfairly punished, by being rendered illegitimate,
and in many instances stripped of the inheritance to
which they might otherwise have been entitled,
d,by
the operation of this most unjust and impolitic
statute. And, eui beno, for what end or object has it
been enacted ? Merely to gratify the bigoted feelings
of those who desire to exercise a jurisdiction over the
consciences of others. If they entertain religious
scruples on the question there is nothing to in-
fringe thereon ; they are not compelled to
enter into such connexions. But they de-
sire to legislate for others to control the
opinions which equally conscientious men may
honestly entertain upon the subject. This. was part
of the system, now happily obsolete in other respects,
when any dissent from the doctrines of the Church
by law established was attended with civil and reli-
gious disabilities. The law prohibiting marriages
within certain degrees of affinity is, a remnant of
intolerance, and it must be swept away so as to re-
move every trace or vestige of the code.

That it was not contrary to Divine law was proved
by its constant occurence:among the Patriarchs and the
earlier Jewish and Christian Churches. The only text
that could be cited bearing on the question is the 18th
verse of the 18th chapteri of Leviticus, and that only
forbids the 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 ."
Here the prohibition is expressly limited in its oho-
roc ter, and, therefore, by a fair implication it appears
that it was not otherwise objectionable. If it were
to be forbidden at all times, and under every circum-
stance, the latter part of the verse would have been
omitted. It would not have been prohibited merely
" during
the wife s lifetime," and this view
of the case is further confirmed by the
fact that there is no such addition in
any other verse. It may, therefore, betaken,
that: so) far from being forbidden by the Scrip-

ture, it is expressly sanctioned after the first wife's
death.

Again, on the question of social convenience, it is
shown that the law occasions tenfold the inconve-
nience that would arise, if parties were perfectly free
and unfettered on the subject. The effect of the
prohibition was clearly explained by one of the wit-
nesses, who said that, "in the families of the poor,
the result of the death of the wife, when a sister was
domiciled in the household, was, either to turn that
sister away, out into the streets, or if she remained,
to bring about, if not marriage, at least cohabitation
with the widower." The same witness added, " Mem-
bers of poor families are thrown into such immediate
contact, that if they had 7W hope of marriage they
would probably continue to live together with-
out it." Which state of facts then is
the most desirable, whether to have a
legal and binding marriage that cannot be set aside,
that renders the husband bound to support his off-
spring, and subject to punishment if he commits
bigamy, and which gives the innocent children the
rights of freeborn citizens ; or that which leads to
illicit connexion that may be dissolved with impu-
nity, and under which, the unfortunate children are
branded with shame, a shame that should rather fall
upon the legislators that enacted a law so unjust and
so impolitic.
But there is another reason, no less cogent, why
that law should be repealed. It is practically useless,
and of no effect. The Commissioners say—

" We cannot avoid the conclusion that the statute 5
and 6 William IV., c. 54, has failed to attain the objects
sought to be effected by its prospective enactments. It
has nut prevented marriage with the eister or niece of a
deceased wife from taking place in numerous instances
—whether more or less numerous than before the pass-
ing of the statute we have ,not, as we before observed,
sufficient data to enable us to form an opinion. But
without reference to any comparison of this description,
the number of such marriages is so great as to
justify us in saying that the provisions of that statute
rendering them null and void have not generally
deterred parties from forming such connexions.. .
. . . On a low computation such marriages
must amount to thousands; but from the nature of the con-
nexion, and the secresy that often attaches to it, their
number cannot be ascertained. The evil is great; for as
beyond all reasonable doubt such marriages, when cele-
brated in England or Ireland, are void, the consequences
are disastrous to the parties and their issue, at once
affecting all the relations—duty and obligation, as well
as the rights dependent on status; nor less pernicious in
a public view, as exhibiting avowed disobedience to law,
by the open assumptio❑ of a sacred character which
the law expressly denies."

These are clear and powerful arguments why there
should be an immediate repeal of the obnoxious
statute. The opinions of the Commissioners were
fully warranted by the evidence adduced before
them. They found from inquiries instituted in five
detached districts, of very different characters, agri-
cultural as well as manufacturing, that no less than
1,364 such marriages had taken place since 1835
which were absolutely void under the provisions of
the statute. As those districts in which the investi-
gation took place bear a small proportion only to the
population of the entire country, it is more than
probable that Mr. STUART • WORTLEY'S calcu-
lation was not above the mark when he
said that perhaps from 10,000 to 50,000 of
such prohibited marriages had taken place since the
passing of the Act, and if the usual average of
children had followed, there would be from 90,000 to
150,000 rendered illegitimate under the law. Is not
this, then, a great moral and social evil that should be
redressed, and that without a moment's unnecessary
delay ? Expunge the useless law from the statute-
book, and pass an Act rendering all such marriages
that have hitherto taken place valid and indisputable,
and legitimatizing the issue thereof. Such Acts
have been passed for the benefit of members of the
aristocracy. Let Parliament legislate for all, and
extend that justice to the poorer classes which would
not be denied to the richer and more powerful.

Gradual and almost imperceptible as the progress
of the negotiations at Frankfort appears to have been,
thei have nevertheless advanced, and are still advanc-
ing, slowly and surely, towards an ultimate settlement.
Another diplomatic note from the Berlin Cabinet to
the Prussian Plenipotentiary at the seat of the Central
Executive—a note which was published in our im-
pression of yesterday—marks the exact point at
which these remarkable negotiations have arrived.
It shows that although impediments have arisen to
retard for the time being the onward movement,
those impediments are not wholly and stubbornly
insurmountable. Prussia still adheres to the prin-
ciple announced in the proclamation issued by leer
SOVEREIGN on the 18th of March, 1848—the principle
which tends throughout Germany to the transformation
of a State Confederation in a Confederate State. It
will not have been forgotten that that memorable pro-
clamation appeared simultaneously with the thea-
trical procession of King FREDERICK WILHELM
through the streets of his capital, wearing the Ger-
manic tricolour, black, red, and gold, in his helmet,
and riding on horseback under the shadow of the na-
tional gonfalon. Subsequent occasions have damped
and very nearly extinguished the credence of the
multitude in the patriotic enthusiasm of the Monarch.
The people cannot fail to see from his recent pro•
ceedings, that his fair speaking at the moment must
arise from some very powerful stimulus, rather
than from any disinterested anxiety to promote
the cause of the population of fatherland.
They must be startled into a suspicious mood by the
abrupt recurrence of the Prussian Government to the
democratic sentiments enunciated shortly after the
French Revolution of February ; and their suspicion
',lust acquire a forcible corroboration from the re-
membrance that the imperial diadem of the
Confederate State has yet to be bestowed by the
representatives. For that diadem FREDERICK
WILHELM is an aspirant. He enlarges through the
Ministerial document transmitted to Frankfort-on-
the-Maine, for the guidance of his plenipotentiary
extraordinary, upon the sacrifice which Prussia is
prepared to make for the advantage of the aggregate
nationality. He dilates with self-sufficient emphasis
upon the capacity of his own kingdom to remain in
its present vigorous isolation, and insists that in
joining with the other Powers of the Confederation
to construct a homogeneous empire out of a chaos of
heterogeneous principalities, Prussia is conceding, a
vast deal, without obtaining anything that can be fairly
termed a compensation. " Prussia," says the Note,
" needs not, on its own account, this Confederate State.
Its greatness, its political consistency, enable it more
than most other states in Germany to suffice for
itself; and, in case of necessity, to defend
itself. It seeks ne aggrandizement in power or
influence. If, upon its side, it desires a Con-
federate State, it is for the sake of Germany,
not of itself. The sacrifices which it brings to Ger-
many, the burdens which it takes upon itself, it
brings and bears for the sake of the community."
What a marvellously Pecksniffian assumption of mag-
nanimity l What a very threadbare robe of pride—
revealing throughout that very greed of power and
influence which is so ostentatiously repudiated 1 The
whole is too transparently a bait thrown out for the
Imperial sceptre. It reminds one of the compla-
cency with which Louis XTI. announced to the
States-General, the readiness of the nobility and
the clergy to
forego their privileged exemption
from taxation, as if in so doing they were
spontaneously bestowing an alms upon the
Tiers Etat / The KING, through his diplomatists,
impresses upon the mind of Germany the magnitude
of the sacrifices made by Prussia in furtherance of
the national welfare ; but he whispers not a word
about that regalia, which he is:notoriously known to
covet as the recompense of his concessions to the
Germanic multitude.
It will be well, however, for the Central Execu-
tive at Frankfort to avail themselves of the selfish
motives of the Prussian Monarch, in the furtherance
of their own aspirations. It will be most judicious
fur the really patriotic representatives in the National
Parliament to receive the co-operative efforts of the
Berlin Cabinet, as the Prince LOUIS NAPOLEON
has received those of the reactionnaires and
counter-revolutionists—allowing them to labour se-
dulously in his behalf, under the delusion that he
would prove merely the preparative for some power
more congenial to their tastes. By imitating the
PRESIDENT of the French Republic in this particular
the Members of the Central Germanic Diet will be
forwarding, in the most effectual manner, the wishes
and interests of the people ; and when all shall have
been
gen definitively accomplished, the Ministers of the
of PRUSSIA will find themselves as agreeably
disappointed as Messrs. Timms and MOLE, who have
found in Bonapartism not the mere perishable efflo-