The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-27 00:00:00

Theabird Edition of The Sun of last Evening was published
in time for delivery in town at 7.15 p.m.

SUN OFFICE, 7 O'CLOCK.

IMPERIAL PA RUA Ai EN T.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-THIS DAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
Mr. CROSS said to-morrow on the motion for the third
reading of the Metropolitan District Rating Bill, he
should call attention to some inaccuracies in the minutes
of evidence ordered by the house to be printed on the llth
of April.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S
SISTER.

Mr. T. CHAMBERS presented a number of petitions fros
different parts of the country in favour of legalizing the
marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. WALPoLE moved that it is inexpedent to alter the
law of marriage, which has existed in this country from
time immemorial, as to the degrees of kindred affinity
within which marriages are permitted, until Parliament
has considered the whole question whether degrees of
affinity should be put on a different footing from the cor-
responding degrees of consanguinity. He said he was in-
duced to take the course he did on the present occasion
because he believed that the proposals of the bill were
opposed by the great majority of the people of the
country, who not merely objected to the measure itself,
but did so because they believed it would lead to ulterior
consequences that they must deeply deprecate. He also
thought it most unwise to alter a law which had so long
existed. He could not believe that there was
any divine command that permitted, even by inference,
such marriages as the bill of the hon. member
for Marylebone proposed, and with respect to
the moral view of the question, such marriages
were now as illegal in this country as those contracted
with a mother or a daughter. In Scotland the bill was
most distasteful, and although some persons might go for
relaxation, the people, as a people, repudiated the pro-
posal to the utmost. He could not, perhaps,
adduce a stronger proof of his assertion than
the course which the member for Edinburgh proposed
to take on the present occasiom which was to move that
Scotland be excluded from the operation of the bill. He
denied that the hon. member for Marylebone could make
out an overwhelming case for the passing of his
bill, and he did hope that the House would not
pass an act merely out of deference to the
wishes of a few, but on the .contrary, that a respect
for the wishes of the majority of the people ought, and
would prevail. With respect to the argument that an
aunt was the best guardian to the orphan children, he did
not deny that, and the law as it stood favoured that view
of the case ; but if they altered it, as was proposed,
he did not think the result of changing the aunt into a step-
mother would be attended with such beneficial results.
Then it was said the bill was one for the benefit of the
poor. There might be some, he would not deny, that
might take advantage of the measure if passed, but the
great object was the cause of the rich. In proof of that
he would just refer to the report of the Commission
that had inquired into the matter and he found there
were 1,608 cases out which there were only 40 cases of poor
persons. The agitation on the subject was got up by, and
paid for by the rich, and if it succeeded, he felt it would
in the end lead to a general breaking up of society. It
was said that foreign countries had relaxed their
rule on the subject of these marriages, but he should
like to know whether that relaxation had led to
an improvement of the morals of those countries. He
insisted that it was not because a change in the law was
desired by a few that therefore Parliament should go
against the feelings and wishes of the great mass of the
people ; and, further, he should like to know how
they could sanction the marriage of a man
with two sisters, and yet refuse the woman
the privilege of marrying two brothers. It was,
he contended, for the interest of the whole community
that such a change as was proposed should not take
place, and therefore he was induced to move his resolu-
tion.

Mr. MONK seconded the motion, but at the same time
he should like to know why Parliament was not asked to
consider the whole table of prohibited degrees, and not
simply a single one.
Mr. GLADSTONE said it was most desirable that some
settlement should be come to in this matter, which had
now been discussed in that House quite as much as the
subject of Church-rates. There was undoubtedly great
diversity of opinion on the subject in the three kingdoms
as to the advisability of continuing the prohibition,
and there was also the difficulty of enforcing
it. The opposition of the right hon. gentleman,
he thought, rested on a very narrow basis, because it
appeared by his resolution that he declined to raise the
question of principle. The hon. member for Marylebone
had undertaken to deal with the difficulty, and it could
hardly be said that a subject that had been discussed
for the last five and thirty years was not
ripe for consideration. He quite admitted
the question of the marriage law ought not to be
tampered with year by year, but the present was not
such a proceeding, as it had been, as he had already
said, for thirty-five years the subject of discussion in the
House, and had, on almost, if not on all occasions, received
the sanction of the representatives of the people sitting
in Parliament. He thought it would be wise to
remove this stone out of the road of legislation,
but he trusted that in doing so the attempt would not be
turned into a class question. It was the duty of Parlia-
ment to look beyond any narrow sphere, they must look
at the whole of society, and, taking that view, he thought
it would be for the advantage of society to relax a law
which could not be sustained by public conviction. Pro-
longed resistance might only tend to widen the area which
the terms of the motion of the right hon. gentleman
seemed to invite.

Mr. BERESFORD HOPE said he had listened to the
words of the right hon. gentleman with pain. He denied
that there was a continuous movement of opinion to
which the supporters of the bill could appeal. There had
been no public meetings on the subject, no conversion of
thinking men, and no advocacy of the change in the
public organs. He failed to discern the slightest
indication of a revulsion in public opinion. He
called attention to the fact that the Congress of the
United States of America had been engaged in debating
the question whether they should not overset the marriage
law of a subordinate territory. He alluded to the case of
Utah, and whilst he admitted that it was an extreme case
it shewed that there was a point at which sovereign inter-
ference should take place. The marriage law of England
was a plain and simple one, and aimed at the utmost ex-
tent of liberty in the matter of marriage, consonant with
what was deemed the voice of God. It recognised
one law forall high and low. If they admitted the principle
of class in marriage, where would they stop? he asked.
The amendment involved a comparative survey of the
marriage laws- of other countries, and he would bring a
few facts before the House which would make it clear
to any candid mind that they could not make the
change with advantage to public morality. The hon.
member, after citing historical cases in illustration of
his argument, proceeded to describe the character of the
marriage law of European countries. He contended that
there was not one argument in favour of marriage with a
deceased wife's sister that was note qually valid, more
cogent, and more logical when appd to the case of a
disconsolate widow seeking the support and help of her
brother-in-law. He warned the House of the effect the
principle of the bill would have if carried to its logical
conclusion.
Mr. MELLY said they knew exactly what the object of
the bill was, and they were equally well aware of the
grievance which they believed it would remove.
Earl PERCY opposed the measure, remarking that the
law which had hitherto been observed as to marriages was
a perfectly clear and good one. If the bill were a just
one they had been doing a great injustice for a long time,
and if It did not go far enough as had been said, it would
be an act of injustice to pass a partial measure. He
characterised the bill as a piece of class legislation.
Mr. DENMAN believed that by maintaining the law as
it at present existed, imposed upon people a burden they
were not able to bear. He questioned the argument that
the agitation on this question had been kept up by people
of substance alone. Nine years ago he received many
letters from small farmers, thanking him for his support
then brought in, and in every case stating that men had
entered into marriage of the kind in question, and
had not lost the respect of those who lived /11