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

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Srrt,—l am 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 fear to
the session of Parliament just opened. Your consistent,
strenuous, and able advocacy of the measure has given
you no slight claim to the gratitude of those who share
my position, and has, I am sure, powerfully contributed
to call public attention to our case, and to excite public
sympathy on our behalf. Every day supplies additional
and abundant proof of the fact, that legislation upon the
subject is imperatively demanded by every consideratio❑
of expediency and justice. No arguments appeal so
powerfully to our understandings as well as to our hearts,
as those which are suggested by our own experience;
and with your permissio❑ I will make a few remarks
upon my own case, in illustration of both the injustice
and the absurdity of the present law. Though, na-
turally enough, I am inclined to lay stress upon my own
case, in many respects, I have little doubt, it is but a
page from the history of thousands. As some 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
attempt to show that it was fraught with danger to the
peace of families—that it would play havoc with do-
mestic 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 as 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 question as
to refer to it in connexion with my own individual case.
As regards the sentiments above alluded to, I can say
with unhesitating honesty, that no one would have any
occasion to blush at being influenced by the feelings
which have prompted and confirmed, governed and con-
secrated 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 wives, was likewise
the most delicate of human beings. She suffered a
life's martyrdom, but she suffered with a gentle pa-
tionce that won sympathy and affection, and with a
fortitude which excited admiration and respect. Aftlic-

tion never soured the sweetness of her disposition, or
ruffled the serenity of her existence. She breathed her
life away as gently as she lived it; and during the last
few days that she was passing from earth to heaven,
her sister, usually buoyant alike in health and spirits,
was the tenderest and most assiduous 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 regarding that sister with looks of love
and gratitude which would have been an ample reward
for any amount of care and toil. The pour 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 bequeathed her 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 welfare of the dear crea-
ture who preserved to me all 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
sacrifices, 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 future with the past?
So: far, however, Sir, though I think I have said
quite enough to show that an attachment to a deceased
wife'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 existing 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 stands presses
upon some classes of the community, those who are
blessed with riches have the means of eluding its opera-
tion. There are countries which do not impose the un-
natural restrictions upon marriage which exist in our
own enlightened land; and as any union becomes legal
in England when legal in the country in which it is
solemnized, money, as usual, is sufficient to remove the
difficulty, which is insuperable without it. I de not
complain that some are able to secure, as a privilege,
what should be enjoyed by all as a right, 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 him to be united with his de-
ceased wife's 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 of God. I, unlike the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, am blessed with no surplus. I occupy
a subordinate situation. The demands upon my purse
are more than equal to the supply, yet if I wish my mar-
riage with the object of my affections to be legal. I must
practice the most rigid self-denial, and endeavour?ne yed
system of relentless severity, to economise my pi h
resources. This lam doing; for though I have not thei
shadow of a doubt that ultimately the Legislature
ll
act with justice and humanity towards those who are
sanguine
Bill.
as to
similarly situated with myself, I not
the immediate success of the Marriage
So much for the injustice of the existing law as re-
gards its unequal opera tim. But this is not all. Is it
effectual in preventing a marriage with a deceased wife's
sister? In other words, does it accomplish its object?