The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, MARC 11 17, 1842

in foreign countries it was not desirable to have a different
rule in this • that.parties who wished to contract them went
abroad for the purpose, and that a vast quantity- of litigation
was the result. The Hon. Gentleman told them that in a
Roman Catholic country a man was allowed, on the autho-
rity of the Church, to marry the sister of his deceased wife.
But the Hon. Gentleman must not stop there. There were
instances in which even closer alliances were permitted ;
and, in order to be consistent, the Honourable Gentleman
must be prepared to contend that these also should be per-
mitted on the same ground. The effect of adopting that prin-
ciple would be to throw the whole system of marriage into
confusion, and to interfere with the whole state of s:s.ciety.—
(Hear.) He could not think that the measure before the
House was one which was likely to confer benefit upon the
country. He thought that even the discussion of the subject
was likely to be attended with evil consequences. The argu-
ments used would throw a degree of doubt upon the limits
which were hitherto considered to be distills t y defined. He
believed, amongst other things which contributed mainly to
the happiness of the married life, was the knowledge that
it was impossible to dissolve the tie by which persons
were bound ; and he believed that in the same way the happi-
ness of domestic seciety depended mainly upon the conviction
of the impossibility of a matrimonial connexion between the
male and female members of the family within limited de-
grees of relationship. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
doubted whether the mere discussion of the question would
not tend to unsettle the minds of people—let loose passions
that had been previously beidW, and breed disunion where
harmony had existed. But if the subject was thus materially
affected by discussion, how much greater would it'necessarily
be by legislation ? He believed great evil had resulted from the
legislation of 1835 upon the subject. He believed it would be
found that marriages between persons of this relationship were
extremely limited before the Bill of 1835. The cases that then
occurred were rare exceptions, and excited observation among 1
persons generally. But so soon as Parliament ga .e out that
they were prepared to legalise those irregular marriages which
had previously taken place, that number had increased ten-fold,
and persons argued in this manner—if Parliament;when we
have committed an offence, instead of letting us feel the punish-
ment
due to this offence interpose to accommodate the law to
the offenders, why surely, if it can effect this, let us seek to make
it more general in society, and see if those marriages
can be extended in a far greater degree, and have our pas-
sions gratified in every respect, Parliament will step in to
legalise what'we, in the first instance, have illegally accom-
plished. That the House might be a cured would be the feeling
which would operate in this instance. It was impossible to
say, when the doors were once opened, how far many would
carry the violation of the law. Men would argue that a
woman might marry her deceased husband's 'brother. There
could be no possible distinction between such a case and the
case under consideration.
Lord F. EGERTON here made some observations in a low
tone of voice, which did not reach the gallery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER went on to
say that he was not aware, as he had just intimated, that
his Noble Friend intended to make the question a part of his
Bill. But even if Parliament was not prepared to go the
length which many parties required, ys t they wou'd bear the
es Rof unsettling the minds of men and women on this point,
and by that unsettlement, of producing great domestic disunion
and unhappiness. With respect to other topics adverted to by
the Hon. Gentleman relative to the introduction of a wife's
sister as the step-mother of the children, the Hon. Gentleman
had, in lan,s'uage much calculated to rouse the feelings of those
who heard him, stated that there was nothing which could be so
suitable or proper, or likely to raise every motive calculated to
benefit the children, than the introduction of such a person
in the capacity of step mother. He admitted to the Ho-
nourable Gentleman, that as far as the children were concerned,
probably no relation would take charge of the children with
so much advantage to them as would the sister of their deceased
mother; but he did not think 'hat, in order to secure that
object, it was necessary or expedient to legalise such mar-
riages. The Hon. Gentleman had stated numerous cases in
which marriages of thiskind had taken place, but he had not
adverted to cases still more numerous, in which sisters would
take charge of the family without the least idea of marriage
at all. What object would be effected by a measure of this
kind? From the moment they passed a law enacting that
the husband could marry the sister of his wife,
they effectually prevented the sister from directing
his attention to cheri-h the bereaved children.' Living in a
state of society in. which great freedom prevailed, and family
intercourse formed one of the greatest luxuries of life, the forms
and feelings of society did not permit that a man and woman of
a certain age, who were capable of being unded in marriage,
should live together without availing themselves of the liberty
which this law would afford them. With respect to the advan-
tages thus derivable to the children, in being thus con-
signed to their mother's sister, he must say that, on
that • ground alone, he did think the operation of the
measure would not entail benefit upon the children.
He did not advert to the consequences which the Right Hon.
Gentleman expressed as likely to result from the legal impedi-
ments to these marriages, or the litigation which they might
produce, if parties who meant to contract unions made them
according to the existing law of the land, and agreeable to
generally received opinions as to what was the strict law upon
the subject, and if parties were content to abide by the rule
by which they ought to be guided; they would get rid of that
evil likely to result from marriages improperly contracted.
But if they were prepared to legalise marriages which had
previously taken place, contrary to the law of the land,
withcut sufficient cause, they were opening a door to
the constant recurrence of discussion on this subject.;
they would be but creating great uncertainty in the law of
marriage, and unsettling principles, by doing which they
would ultimately give a fatal blow to domestic comfort and the
enjoyment of happiness.
Mr. BROTHER TON said that it was only since the year
1835 that these marriages had been declared illegal.—(Oh, oh,
and Hear, hear.) Previous to that, when those marriages
were voidable but not void, he remembered that there was a
very strong feeling upon the subject at the time he referred to ;
and when the Bill was in Committee the law was left by that
Committee exactly as they had found it, namely, that those
marriages should continue voidable, butr.ot void. Subsequently,
on bringing up the Report, a clause was inserted
declaring those marriages void, but some one who
was interested in the question got the Bill altered
in the noose of Lords, so that the effect of the }till, as then
amended and passed into law, was that those marriages should
be pronounced void after the pas:ing of the Act. What was
the consequence? Sergeant Talfourd, on the very night on
which the Bill received the Royal assent, moved in the House
for its repeal. He had seen many respectable parties from
Manchester and its neighbourhood since that time, and he
knew that marriages ha I taken place among a respectable class
of society, that must now be considered void. He had been
told that among the labouring classes such marriages were very
frequent. Though they may be argued about on the ground of
:nexpediency, whether they might be considered calculated to
do injury or not ; yet there was a very general ;mpressiPn that
marriages of this kind were neither unlawful nor immoral. As
Parliament, therefore, had declared such marriages legal in
1835, it could do so again. It had been contended on the
authority of the New Testament, that even second marriages
were improper, and that St. Paul, in speaking against matri-
mony, only spoke of second marriages. Yet the Apostles
themselves were married, for" Peter's wife's mother" was ex-
pressly mentioned, showing that he was married at all events.
It might be proved that second marriages were inexpedient, on
the same kind of arguments brought against the marriages
under discussion, and for these reasons he was disposed not to
oppose the present Bill.
Mr. V. SMITH said he wished to address a few words
to the House on a subject which had at least the merit of no.
velty. One reason that induced him to give his vote against
the proposition was the time at which it was made. He
did think, that considering the security the House had in the
character of the Nobles Lord, (the Secretary for Ireland) from
his high character, and the ample consideration he had given
to this question, as well as the position he occupied in
that House, not only from his rank and the large
constituency he. represented, but from the course
he had pursued in the. House, showing that strong party at-
tachments, and talents of no ordinary kind, might be made,
perfectly consistent with the most concil atory demeanour to-
wards all parties in that House—he did think it was due to
him to have allowed him to introduce his Bill. Th t per-
mission he considered had been denied him when the adjourn-
ment took place ; and, therefore, on the present occasion he felt
obliged to give his vote against the Bill. He should not enter
into the religious considerations? connected with the question—
they had been •very properly avoided, for if there
were religious objections to such unions; no Isw that
could be liaised would obviate them. In this respect every
man must be left to be guided by his own conviction. What-
ever law might be passed, he should confine himself solely to
the inconvenience and inexpediency of these marriages. The
Hon. Member for Liskeard had made an able speech on the
question, but he thought it told rather affain,t the Bill for
which he intended to vote, than in its 'favour. The Hon.
Member had considered that if the question were confined ex-
clusively to the upper classes it would be different; but with*
regard to the working classes, among them a widower could find
no person so well fitted to take care of his children as his
wife's sister. Ile differed with the Hon. Member in his view of
the question in reference to the upper and working classes.
Among the working classes, it was a much simpler pooceeding for
a sister of a deceased wife to live wills the husband, without any
impropriety than among the higher classes. The laws they might
carry in that House, on such subjects, were calculated to have a
very great effect on the morals of society. Fiscal laws might be
avoided by those determined to do so ; in political legislation also,
laws might be obstructed by those who were disposed
to do so; but with respect to laws bearing on
morals, the case was different; persons were not unapt to take
their moral tone from the laws passed by that House. They
were called on to consider the views prevailing on this question
among society. It was stated that there was a very strong feeling
in favour of such a law among the people. Now he meant to say,
that if such a feeling existed, lie was perfectly ignorant of it.
When they were called on to look at the distress of the persons
who were agitating this question, he thought that they had no
great call on their sympathies. Who were they ? Who must they
be ?—(Hear.) He should be sorry to treat the question with
anything that had the appearance of ridicule—(Hear, hear)
towards the feelings of any portion of his fellow countrymen. But

he supposed the persons who were agitating this question were a
number of mature gentlemen who were widowers, and anxious to
marry their deceased wife's sister. He must say that the agita-
tion of such a question by such a body of men need not necessarily
excite the sympathy which the situation of any other sort of dis-
tressed persons would do. He believed, with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that many persons who had lost their wives
were not unwilling to permit their wife's sister to live in
their house, and to take care of their children. The moment they
passed a law permitting Oleic parties to marry, there was not one of
those couple: now living together in a perfectly harmlesiond re-
!pectable manner, who would not feel called on by the state of
society in the country districts of England, immediately to marry.
—(Hear, hear.) This would be a very great inconvenience, as
there might be numerous cases in which persons were willing to
live together, but who would yet be extremely unwilling to in
crease their expenses by a family, or become connected
by marriage. He knew this was a delicate subject to touch on;
he wa; not such a master of language, but tome expression might
escape him, which might excite their ridicule; but he hoped
Hon. Gentlemen would believe that he was endeavouring to speak
seriously, and not think that he had any intention of exciting

mirth.—(Hear, hear.) The principal purpose of this Bill was
founded un an assumption that, he was unwilling to allow, namely,
that it was impossible for affection to exist between the sexes with.
out marriage, It assumed that it was utterly impossible
for a widower to live with the sister of a deceased wife, without
some improper connexion. He admitted the dangerous tendency
of placing young 'tenons to lis etogether in the same house, but he
did not think the objection applied to cases of this kind. He
thought that in these cases the law might create the very feeling
they wished to avoid.—'Hear.) He did not admit the impossibility,
as stated by the lion. Member for Liskeard, of placing a commerce
of love between a widower and his deceased wife's sister, on the
same footing as that from which they must all recoil with horror.
He should give his vote against the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, if it had been proved that this Bill was
required by the state of society among the poorer, classes of this
country, it certainly was not demanded , by anything that occurred
among the Catholics of Ireland. This Bill was not wanted by the
He did not oppose the Bill be-
catholic population of Ireland.
cause those marriages were limited by the law of the Church. He
had heard a good deal of theology that evening, and some of it was
rather intLfferent. His Hon. Friend (the Member for Sa'ford)
he (.31r. O'Connell) could assure
had made a slight mistake, for
him that if the Anglican Clergy wished to be reconciled to Mother
Church, they might hold their livings without being obliged to part
with their wives. But he (Mr. O'Connell) would oppose the Bill
because he was persuaded that it would not promote domestic mo-
rality or happiness.
Lord ASHLEY said the Hon. and Learned Member for Lis-