The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-13 00:00:00

EVENING

FEBRUARY 13, 1851.

TO MR. HENRY BAGSTER.

LambeLb, Feb. 8, 1851.
Sir,—l beg to offer a few remarks in addition to my
former letter. hoping that the opinion of the many may
Furnish the Hon. Gentleman who presents our petition
with sound and truthful arguments in its defence. Pro-
testant divines each us to view the Holy Scrip-
tures as the standard of our faith, and to guide us
through our earthly pilgrimage. The law which de
(dares a marriage to a deceased wife's sister to be illegal,
I presume is oue of the canon or by-laws of the Church.
Now the question is—ls this said law founded purely
on Scripture authority ? if so, lam one who have vin
lated the law. I have searched the Scriptures myself,
and consulted Working men who make the Scriptures
their daily study, and I am happy to say there are m
such men adorn the working classes, and they say they
cannot find it. So as the said law is not founded on
the Word of God, what right have men to make a
law contrary to God's most sacred decrees, and raise
an unjustifiable barrier between parties whose
intentions are purely honourable and undefiled?
Such a law may have better suited the dark ages of
superstition and intolerance, when the mind was
crsmped by a depraved priesthood, but it don't suit the
nineteenth century, as each man can have the law of
God in his house to consult for himself', and ba directed
by his own conscience. Had the promoters of the said
law been acqu ,itated with humble life, they would have
better known the position a poor man is placed in when
left with motherless children.
When the wife of a rich man dies, it is certainly a
great family ailiction; but even then, he is surrounded
with such comforts a poor man is a stranger to. The
rich can provide nurses, schools, and colleges for their
children, whilst the bereaved parent takes a continental
journey to recruit his health and happiness; but with a
poor man it is not so—he is doomed to toil, and when
toil is over, with reluctant steps he returns to his home.
But where is the object of his affection who made his
home happy ? Alas.! she is gone for ever. Weeks and
months roll on, and as they roll, so his children's clothes
become tattered and torn; and, in numerous cases, one
child not able to mend fur another, or any person to in-
struct them.

His once happy home then becomes wretched, and if
he has not sufficient fortitude, he drinks strong drink to
drown his sorrow. tut, in some cases, his deceased rife
has a single sister left, whose heart yearns to see such
sad
.reverses in the family, and would gladly restore it to
its former happiness, but delicscy forbids, unless she is
warranted by the rights of marriage. The man sees no
other alternative. Now, I ask any gentleman what
would he do under similar circumstances? The above
is a correct picture. I have passed through its degrees;
therefore I speak from experience.
Now a word to the ladies. If any are halting between
two opinions, I advise them to look to the humane side.
Although the law may appear to cast a stigma upon
their fame, their undertaking will be applauded by the
just and the wise; and they may rest assured, if mar-
rying to a deceased sister's husband be their only sin,
it will be but a small item to be accountable' for when
before the just tribunal at the last day.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Lambeth, Feb. 11, 1851. CHARLES HICKS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sits,--I em one of the many who are personally in-
terested in the above measure, and who have been look-
ing forward with mingled feelings of hope and fesr to
the session of Parliament, just opeued. Your consistent,
strenuous, and able advocacy of the measure has given
you no slight claim to the gratitude of those who share
my petition, and has, I am sure, powerfully contributed
to call public attention to our case, and to excite public
sympathy ou our hehelf. Every day supplies additional
and abundant proof of the tact, that legletation upon the
subject is imperatively demanded by every consideration
of expsdieney and justice. No arguments appeal so
poeertully to our understandings as well as to our hearts,
as those which are suggested by our own experience;
end wi;h your permission I will make a few remarks
upon my own case, in illustration of both the injustice
and the übsurdhy of the present law. Though, na-
turally enough, I am inclined to lay stress upon my own
case, in many t espeets, I have little doubt, it is but a
page from the history of thousands. As s' me guarantee
for the trustworthiness of this communication, I inclose
my name and address, for though lam averse to pub-
licity, I am not afraid of inquiry.
A great deal of maudlin sentiment, where it has not
been wilful prejudice or something worse", has been ex-
pended by the opponents of Mr. Wortley's Bill in the
ast'erept to show that it was fraught with danger to the
po.ce of families—that it would play havoc with do-
tuesaic relationships—that it would prevent all associa-
tion of the husband with the wife's sister—and that it
would cherish and create all conceivable passions of an
improper character. What! are such opinions es these
founded upon a just appreciation of the sanctity with
which the marriage tie in this country is usually sup-
posed to be invested? Is it necessary to guard the con-
jugal state against some universal and almost irresistible
tendency to hypocrisy and falsehood? What is the value
of the affection and the fidelity which can only. be
trusted when seured by the shackles of the law? But I
do not. so much intend to argue the general queition as
to refer to it in connexion with my own individual case.
As regards the sentiments above alluded to, I can say
with uehesitating honesty, that no one would have any
eccaeion to blush at being influenced by the feelings
which have prompted and contirmA, governed and cone
secreted the relationship which I have ever sustained to
the sister of my deceased wife. Will you allow me the
retrospect of a few words in order to justify the remark?
My wife, the dearest and the best of elves, was likewise
the most delicate of human beings. She suffered a
life's martyrdom, but she suffered with a gentle pa-
tience that won sympathy and affection, and with a
fortituae which excited admiration and respect. A fflic-
tion never soured the sweetness of her disposition, or
ruff al the serenity of her t xisterce. She breathed her
life away as gently as she lived it; and during the last
few days that she was eassing from earth to heaven,
her sister, usually buoy not alike iu health and spirits,
was the tenderest end most teenduous of nurses. When-
ever, escaping from the occupation of the day, I re-
gained the position I so much loved, by the side of my
wife; I found her with her head pillowed on the bosom
of her sister, and iegardiug that sister with looks of love
and gratitude which would have been are ample reward
for any amount of care and t The poor creature
expired where she had always desired to do, and where,
when she could no longer live there, I too wished that
she might die—in my arms; and Ix queathed bet sister
a legacy to heaven and me. After I lost her I had but
one pleasure left me—a pleasure which united my gra-
titude and affection towards the living with my devotion
to the dead.; Anxiously and zealously, faithfully and re-
ligiously. I watched over the welter(' of the near crea-
ture who preserved to me alt that was dead of memory,
and gave me whatever I had of hope. I could have
cheerfully consented to any sacrifice, as I did to many
&tailless, to secure her happiness. I need scarcely say
more. We were both young—l but three years her
senior. Is it strange that she has become to me the link
which unites the fature.with the past?
So; tar, however, Sir, though I think I have said
quite enough to show that an attachment to a deceased
wire's sister is not always the result and the cause of the
depraved feelings which tome violent opponents of Mr.
Wortley's Bill seem to suppose, I have said nothing to
prove, by reference to my own case, the absurdity and
the injustice of the existieg marriage law, and I shall
now proceed to do so. I have already trespassed upon
your valuable space at much greater length than I origi-
nally intended to do, and I shall condense my re-
maining remarks into as small a compass as possible.
However heavily the law as it at present Gtauds presses
upon some classes of the community, those who are
blessed with riches have the means of eluding its epera-
tion. There are countries which du not impose the un-
natural restriciions upon marriage which exist iti our
own etaightened land; and as any union becomes legal
in England when legal in the country in which it is
solemnized, money, as usual, ie sufficient to remove the
difficulty, which is insuperable without it. I do not
complain that some are able to secure, as a privilege,
what should he enjoyed by ail as a rie.ht, I rather re-
joice that the wrong cannot reach all. But it is not the
less a gross violation of justice that the man who has no
moneyed means to enable hies to be united with his de-
masd witaas sister where such a marriage is legal, must
either fly in the face of the law of the land, or submit to
the loss of the happiness which is not denied to him by
the law of nature and o: God. I, unlike the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, am blessed with no surplus. I occepy
a subordinate situation. The demands upon my purse
aro more than equal to the supply, yet if I wish my mar
siege with the object of me affections to be logal. I roustba
prat ice the most rigid eels-denial, and endeavouriaed
system of relentless severity, to economise
is rive tet the
resources. This lam doing; fur
shadow of a doubt that ultimatelythtotrue-hLi gosisela_tut_re will
are
act with justice and humanity towards 11
.WllO
m not sanguine as to
similarly situated with myself, I a
the immediate suttees of the Marriage
.1::1
•So much for the iejuaice of the existing law as re-
wards its unequal oyeration. .B iut this is not all. Ia it
effeutual in preventing a marriage with a deceased wife's
bider? In other words, cices it accomplish its object?