The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-06 00:00:00

.-
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The Smesessu took the chair at 12 o'clock.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S
SISTER.
General P. THOMPSON, in presenting a petition from
Bradford in favour of marriage with a deceased wife's
sister said the petition was numerously signed and
ould reach from Westminster Abbey to Bradford, and
added, every person there, sir, wants to marry his wife's
sister. (Loud laughter.)
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL.
Viscount BURY moved the second reading of this
bitMe, B. HOPE moved its second reading this day six
neouthrl, He complained of a question of so ranch im-
portance being considered io the middle of theday, just as
if it was one that affected only the most insignificant
class interest in the country. This question was one of
.great importance, and required their serious attention.
It affected every class, from the Queen on the throne
to the lowest mendicant in the streets, yet the
noble lord who had moved the second reading
bid declined to state the grounds on which he wished
to alter a law that bad bean in use upwards of 300 years.
lie had, therefore, thrown on the opponents of the mea-
sure the onus of proving the necessity of maintaining the
present law, and they would not hesitate to accept thee
challenge. In 1847 a Royal commission was app
to to investigate the subject, and after heariogas
I a evidencej
they made a report, which had been treated
lis and
and attacked and ridiculed by the late Sir H.
nigven to
Mr. Goulbourne, gentlemen who
making jokes, or ridicule matters ofwegrreavnenimimilgparortteanthcei;
Bills had been introduced into that house s
and thrown out, which he hoped would be the
to th ate of th
is
agitation e
bill. He traced the progress of
savoured stron the g of
sent time, which he
an attorney's office. (Lasua'hter ) The house knew
how petitions were -got, and he thought they
should not place reliance on them, and had their oppo-
nents given the emissaries of the. Marriage Law Re-
form Association Society a second sheet of paper and a
few shillings they would have been able to present as
many petitions against the bill as had been presented in
its favour. The number of petitions were the exact
number of 30 and 35, and 40 and 46 petitioners' names
affixed, clearly showed the men were paid by the 30's
and 46's. The petitions came principally from London,
and in reference to petitions and that presented by the
late Mr. Fergus O'Connor,• he (Mr. Hope)
believed that in no petitions did numbers less
. represent weight and consideration than those
that had been presented in favour of this bill.
The main question for their consideration was whether
these marriages were lawful or not 4 but with the great
difference of religious opinion existing in that house he
thought it would be a difficult question to argue. He
should base his argument on the footing, was the whole
evidence of Scripture interpreted by its own words, and
the divergent opinions of Christians since, raise so high
a degree of probability that these marriages were not
lawful and should be set aside on account of its social in •
convenience, so as to permit them to assent to the
second reading of this bill. The report of the Royal
Commission shirked the point with reference to the law
and practice relative to marriage in the earliest ages of
Christianity. In discussing this question reliance had been
placed on the 10th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus,
but he thought they should be guided by the whole scope
of the verses preceding the chapter, relative to the un-
lawful union forbidden to be contracted. The hon.
gentleman then referred to several verses in Leviticus
bearing on the question, which he said was conclusive
against the bill even if the whole of the country were in
its favour. He proceeded at great length to show that
as a general rule with the exception of a few dispense-
tions, the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the
Protestant Church, since,the Reformation, were opposed
to these marriages. With regard to the social question
this report showed that 1,500 of these marriages had
been contracted in London and 30,000 throughout Eng-
land, it showed what a state of degradation the people
were in relative to their duties to human and divine laws.
By the passing of this act through the conventional law
of a censorious world no man's deceased wife's sister
could enter her brother-in law's house and take charge
of his house and his children unless she was prepared to
follow him to the altar. (Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) If
the aunt took the place of the step-mother she would
have as strong a preference for her own children as any
other step-mother, and as great, if not a greater, in-
justice would be done to the children in the one case as
in the other. He denied that in the lower classes a
man's wife's sister became his house-keeper so as to
render marriage necessary. The children had nothing
to do with these marriages, for a man married his
deceased wife's sister because he had talked
and chatted with her, and had a passion
for her. This bill would open the door to lust,
and after its passing there would be no safety for a
wife's sister under the brother's roof. The joint opera-
tion of the Divorce Act of last session, and the bill if
carried would be that if the husband seduced his wife's
sister, the wife would be compelled by the laws of society
to divorce him. He would then be left free to lead to
the altar his wife's sister, whom he had seduced, and
whom he had seduced in order to obtain a divorce to
make her his wife by this enactment. (Hear, hear, and
cries of " Oh, oh.") In Ireland the bill was regarded
by Roman Catholic priests and Presbyterians with an
unmixed feeling of horror ' • yet Ireland was to be
dragged under the law, and a bonus be given to Scot-
land. He called upon the house to reject the second
reading of the bill.
Mr. BUXTON considered this question was open to
doubt relative to its expediency ; but he thought in many
cases these marriages were peculiarly fit, and it was a
great hardship the parties should be deprived from enter-
ing them. These marriages were not contained in the
list of forbidden unions ; and it appeared to him clear
by implication that after the wife's death such marriages
were to be allowed. The prohibiti ins of parents and
first cousins had within late years been removed, as well
as the marriages of the godfather and godmother of the
same body, and he saw no reason why the prohibition
to contract marriage with a deceased wife's sister should
not be removed.
Mr. COLLIER said the hon. member for Maidstone
appeared to think that the number of petitions presented
in favour of the measure was no proof of the favour in
which it was entertained In the country, but from a
document he (Mr. Collier) held in his band he found cer-
tain limits given for drawing up petitions against the
bill that had been sent round the country with a remark
that there was no objection to women signing it. (Hear.)
That paper was signed by Mr. J. B. Hope—(laughter)
—and those who acted with him appeared to him to have
a desire to get up his petition as economical as possible,
for the document further stated that in consequence of
- the expense of sending the circular round gentlemen
were asked to contribute a few postage stamps towards
defraying it—(laughter)—and the result of the agitation
had been the production of one small petition. (Hear,
bear, and laughter.) He considered the burthen of
proof that these usages were illegal rested on those who
opposed them, and be proceeded to argue that by Levi-
ticus a man was only prohibited from bringing his wife's
sister home to vex her during her lifetime, and not from
marrying her after his wife's death. (Hear, hear.) If
the-e marriages were illegal, why did the Houses of Par-
liament, including the bench of bishops, permit Lord
Lyndhurst's Act to pass legalising those marriages that
had taken place before that time. By consenting to
that Act, it appearel to him the legislature had sanc-
tioned these marriages as not being contrary to the word of
God. He did not find that in the countries where these
marriages were permitted the people had any desire to
change the law. The evils spoken of by the opponents
of the measure as likely to ensue from this change were
of an imaginary character in comparison with those
that elated under the present law. The honourable and
learned member referred to the recent decision declaring
that marriages contracted by English people in foreign
countries were illegal which had caused many to be the
victims of a tyrannical law. If its having operated had
been felt in the higher classes, it was greater amongst
the poorer classes, who looked upon sister as the natu-
ral guardian for a deceased wife's children. As the
theological part of the argument was against the prohi-
bition, and if the social evils resulting from the
prohibition, and to be apprehended from a change
were so nicely balanced, it was the duty of the house to
consider which course they would pursue, and he thought
common sense pointed out theta change would be bene-
fi:ial to the morality of the people.
Mr. M. T. BAINES supported the measure. He
considered it was wrong and tyrannical to legislate
against those marriages. It was impossible to indue3
the people to believe that these marriages were prohi-
bited, and he therefore considered it was unjust far that
house to endeavour to prevent them. He defended the
report of the commission, composed of five very able
men, and which was deserving of every respect and at-
tention from that house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DR UMMOND admitted with regret that the
present state of things required alteration.
Sir G. C. LEWIS cordially supported the bill, and
hoped the house would read the bill a second time with-
out hesitation.
The LORD ADVOCATE was opposed to the bill on
legal grounds, and considered the burthen of proof
of the necessity of the measure rested on the promoters
of the bill, who had failed hitherto to do so.
He should vote against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. PULLER opposed the bill and entered into a
lengthened theological argument to prove that these
marriages were prohibited by scripture, and contrary to
divine law. He suggested a committee of the most able
divinea to enquire into the question on theological
grounds.
Mr. M. MILNES, who was in some measure answer-
able for the introduction of the bill, was anxious to have
a division on the second reading that afternoon. The
skaeouation was se well understood by the people that he
za,:el.not enter at great length into a defence of the
tuusa", line. defended the necessity of such a bill both on
14,7 ii di and moral and social grounds.
amidstAlotr
cries
and Mr. Meuse supported the bill,
Viscount BURY " Divide."
replied to the ohjections raised by
the opponents of
The house then
etl in the course of the debate.
divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
• Against it ............................... 174
..... 134
...........

.......... Majority .......... .
. 40
. and .
The bill wag read a second
committed on the 20th. ordered t&be
ECCLESIASTICAL RESIDENCES (IRELAN)
Thii bill passed through committee pro forma.
ROADS, &c. (SCOTLA.ND) BILL.
The second reading of this bill was postponed tilt 80th
June.
EXCHEQUER BONDS (2,000,0001.) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.