The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAHLIAM ENT
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MARRIAGES BILL.
Sir F. TBESIGER (in continuation from our After.
noon Edition) said—But this did not satisfy
there.—(Hear.) They then had recourse to the
opinions of the most eminent men at the bar; and ulti-
mately they employed professionally no less than
nine individuals, who were sent into various
districts to collect materials to enable the parties to ob-
tain the object they so long sought, and the whole of the
evidence collected by them was that which formed the
staple of the report presented to the House by the Com-
missioners. The House had to guide them in thee- legis-
lation the evidence of about 41 witnesses; 10 of these were
prof-ssional men employed, fifteen interested parties,
some German lawyers, and thirteen clergymen of various
denominations, all of whom expressed different opinions
upon the subject. In this state of the matter he (Sir F.
Thesiger) had been anxious to ascertain the views of the
country as to the public feeling on the sub-
ject, and he found that tee majority of the clergy
in this country and in Ireland disapproved of the pro-
pel( d connexion. In Scotland tee opinion of the clergy
was also against it ; and the laity generally of the
United Kingdom were also unfavourable to it.—(Hear,
hear.) With but very few exceptions, be believed the
public opinion to be that legislation was nut ro-
gue ed upon the subject, and that it would
be unwise to a lopt it.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought that any one looking at the report would
be of opinion that the Commissioners would go to the
utmost limits, and almost to any extent to viol-te the
rules of morality. Under these circumstances the
House was called upon by his Right Honourable
Friend to legislate upon this matter, and alter
the law of marriage by allowing persons
to marry the sister of their deceased wife. In his opi-
nion upon this subject a serious and most awful ques-
tion arose, namely, were these marriages against the Di-
vine dispensation, and prohibited by the Divine law? It
was his firm conviction that they were—that he felt the
painfulness of the discussion of such a question
before an assembly like the present; but he believed that
the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Plymouth, and those of the Honourable Mem-
ber for the University of Oxford during
the last session, had exhausted the subject.
The mystical union which was inculcated satisfied him
that any mere marriage with a wife's relation was much
more strongly condemned in the Christian scheme than
in the looser ideas of the Jewish dispensation. He was
not disheartened that he did not find such a marriage
particularly condemned in the Levitical law, because
he thought that the table there was not intended
to be a complete one, but only contained
certain instances. He looked about for aid in the
construction to which he had arrived, and he did
not think that his Right Honourable Friend had
dealt fairly with the councils which had condemned
these marriages. He bad said that no council had pro-
hibited these marriages before the fourth century, but
had his Right Honourable and Learned Friend met with
any council to sanction these marriages? He (Sir F.
Thesiger) for his part, considered that these councils de-
clared the opinion of the whole Church from the time of
our Saviour downwards, and that this was the first occa-
sion on which there was any necessity to proclaim it.
What would be the first effect of the legislation which
his Right Honourable Friend sought ? Why,
to legalise marriages which had been contracted
in known violation of the law.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Honourable Gentleman had laid much
stress upon the Bill ef 1835, and upon the fact that the
bishops had sanctioned this Bill. It was not for him
(Sir F. Thesiger) to inquire into the motives which had
induced those Reverend Prelates to come to this com-
promise; but this was certain, that from 1835 marriages
of this sort were declared null and void. And let
the House just remember the solemn warning
which formed part of the marriage service of the
Established Church, that each should declare if there
were any lawful objection to their union. His Right
Hon. Fri( nd had put tore and the plea of compassion for
those who, under this Act, remained illegitimate. Would
it nut have been well that persons, who had notoriously
violated the law, should before they had done so, have
had some consideration to the consequences of it
themselves. His Right Honourable Friend also
claimed their sympathies for the Bill, inasmuch
as it affected the poorer classes--but had those
wealthy gentlemen who had first started this agitation
had much regard to the care of the poor. Nothing had
then been said about this part of the question, but now
it formed a very useful adjunct. But he (Sir F.
Thesiger) did not think that these marriages
were so very numerous among the poor. He did not be-
lieve that the question affected them so nearly. Looking
at the materials which the House had before them to le-
gislate upon, he did not find this to be the case. Out of
1,503 of these marriages, only 40 were contracted by 40
labourers and mechanics.—(Hear; hear.) The Learned
Gentleman then read the testimony of many Hon. Gen-
tlemen layout able to the measure, none of whom could
state of their own knowledge that such marriages were
frequent among the lower classes. But would the House
be content to legislate upon the belief of these gentle-
meu, which was supported by no known facts? The case
of the poor then entirely failed. The only argument for
such er post facto proceeding, namely, an urgent necessity,
was by no means proved as far as they had yet gone.
Now ho could not help thinking that it would have been
infinitely better if some of these letters, which had been
inserted in the appendix for the purpose of showing
the hardship of the law, had not been placed there. lie
could not help advertieg to one letter, No. 36—it was
that of Mr. Brougher. He said that he had, through
the providence of God, removed from him a wife with
whom he had passed a happy married life of thirty-six
years, and having a family ot six daughters, three of whom
were married, and he could not think of placing so
young a person as his eldest unmarried daughter at the
head of his establishment. There was is sister of his
late wile who had passed upwards of twenty years with
them, and with the consent of all his family he was de-
sirous of being united to her without any reproach from
the world. They were now both about sixty.—(Hear,
heir.) Now be did think that the parties who advo-
catee this change must have been very hard pressed, in-
deed efor a case to adduce such an instance as this.
—(Hear.) In legislating for this change they should
recollect that they were omitting altogether that class to
whom such a piece of legislation would be both ob-
noxious and injurious. If the parties liable to contract
such a marriage were old, what doubt was there but
that the sister-in-law might take the charge of a young
family without the slightest chance of censure from the
world?—(Hear, hear.) If the parties were young, and
a marriage took place, there would in all probability
family, and then what could pos-
danger of the hardship which so frequently re-
sbieb
stilted from the jurisdiction of a step-mother? Again,
another
takeplace but that there would be all the
as things now stood the sister-in-law quietly took her
place in the family under one of the dearest relations of
affectionate intercourse, but alter the law, and her posi-
tion would be altogether altered.--(Hear, hear.) She
could only be received and be considered as a stranger.
—(Bear, hear.) In the case of a husband who was
likely to be bereaved, to whom should he look for com-
fort and assistance in such a trying hour but to the sister
of his wife? As the law now stood this was natural and
easily attainable, but alter it, and directly a sus-
picion was thrown over her, and she itn-
mediatly appeared as an aspirant for that
place which was likely so soon to be so solemnly
vacated—(Hear, hear)—and thus, instead of conferring
a been on the children of a motherless family by this
alteration, they would, in fact,
be doing a great and
serious injury to them.—(Hear, hear.) He had hitherto
confined himself solely to the case which had been
brought before the House by the Bill and the speech of
his Right Hon. and Learned Friend, but it should not
be forgotten that when this measure was last before the
House ho had taken occasion to show that if it were
passed a way would be opened to still further abuses,
and he had brought under their notice the case which
would most probably occur if the marriage of a widower
with his deceased wife's niece took place—(Hear, hear.)
It was clear that his Right Hon. Friend in his proposition
was breaking doe n marriages in close affinity, and
allowing them in a more extended degree. The
Bill was in fact, allowing marriages in all de-
grees of affinity, and they could not stop short any
where, but must repeal all marriages, if it was
passed. The Legislature had powers to interfere
or riot ; if it had not, it was by Divine
prohibition, if there was no such prohibition
the Legislature was paramount, and yet by the clauses
in the Bill misgivings were clearly shown on the subject.
But the Bill did worse than this it, was calculated to set
one party in the Church against the other. He was
afraid the breach was wide enough already, and
it did not require this measure to increase it.
It was quite clear that there were a great number of
clergymen who would not solemnize marriages of that
description. What was the poor man, then, to do ?
Why, it was said he must go into another parish : that
would never do, and what was the consequence? Why
that person was either driven to the ranks of the Dis-
senters, or to live in open adultery. But then it was
said they might go to the registrar. Now many had
great objections to the adoption of that course. Under
all these circumstances, hefelt it to be his bounden duty
to resist the introduction of such a law, and he should
therefore move that it be read a second time that day
six months.—(Hear.)
Colonel THOMPSON supported the second reading
of the Bill, and thought that upon looking at the mar-
riage ritual, the whole of the objections of the Hon. and
Learned Member were entirely answered ; for in that
ritual, after the question was asked whether the parties
knew of any objection why they might not lawfully be
joined together in holy matrimony, there was the fol-
lowing admonition:—" For be ye well assured
that as many as are coupled together otherwise than as
God's Holy Word will allow are not joined together by
God, neither is their marriage legal." He submitted
that the question with respect to marriage with a de-
ceased wite's niece had nothing to do with the conside-
ration of the present measure.
Mr. HEADLAM supported the Bill, and contended
that us the Scriptures did not prohibit these marriages
they were committing an absolute wrong in not afford-
ing relief to the unfortunate persons who were suffering
from the injustice of the existing law. If laws were
enacted to prohibit marriages within certain degrees of
affinity without the Divine sanction, they would be
generally resisted by the people as meddling and oppres-
sive, and rendered altogether inoperative.
Mr. P. WOOD said he had arrived at the conclusion
that, in Divine revelation, there was a direct prohibition
of marriages of this descriptioa;:but, although he en-
tertained this opinion he was not rendered incom-
petent to enter into and to admire the arguments of
Paley, in his ‘. Natural Theology," or the still more
striking theories of Dr. Butler, in his" Divine and Na-
tural Religion." For, independent of the question of ,