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

keard referred, In support of the Bill, to-the practice of a great
part of Christendom, but particularly of Protestant Europe. In
this reference he was unfortunate, for the fact was, that so lightly
was the marl iage tie, In consequence of this practice, held in Ger.
many, that all thinking men were now of opinion that morals
could only be maintained by a return to the old common law.
But he had quoted a more important example still. Under the
law of 1792, passed in France in the worst times -of the Republic,
the ecclesiastical and canon law were abolished, and the marriages
of all the degrees theretofore prohibited were allowed, except in
the cases of uterine brothers and sisters. But when this part of
the Code of Napoleon was discussed in the Council of State, in
1804, when, besides the First Consul, Bernier, Cambaccre, Seyes,
and other able men were present, it was argued that the mo-
tives of affection and regard for children, seldom led to
the marriages of brothers and sisters-in-law ; that on the
contrary, the relaxation often led to indecent practices, and the
disturbances of families, and afterwards of divorces ; therefore, the
First Consul, and the majority of the Council, enacted, that the
marriages of uncles and nieces, or of aunts and nephews, should
be prohibited, but with the power of dispensation; but that the
marriages of brothers and sisters-in-law should he prohibited, with-
out any power whatever to grant a dispensation.--(Hear, hear.)
This was done altogether on a principle of social order and stabi-
lity, and without any reference to religion. Let the experience of
those able me►t guide us now. If the Bill of the Noble Lord was
passed the limitations could not stop where he had proposed them.
Even his schedule proposed to reduce the prohibited degrees from
30 to 20. But now the line of demarcation was well defined;
and wishing to keep, it so for the most important, moral, and social
reasons, he (Lord A.) would oppose the Bill of his Noble Friend.
He thought that on a matter of such impor‘ance, they shoulil
wait until they heard the deep and unalterable opinion of the public.
He was sure that the great body of the Clergy were opposed to
the change--( Hear, hear)—and that if the opinions of the people
were taken by poll, they would also be found equally hostile to it.
He was sure that if the sense of the women, who were the best
judges of what was conducive to social happiness, and to the moral
dignity of mankind, had been taken, the House would never have
heard of this Bill.--(Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. CHARLES WO')D thought that the Noble Lord who
last addressed the House was incorrect in stating that this Bill
would be an innovation upon' the ancient laws of this country ;
on the contrary the Bill of Lord Lyndhurst in 1835 was an inno.
vasion of the ancient law of England, by which such .marriages
were not void but voidable. He believed that under the
previous law those marriages wereby t.o means uncommon amongst
all classes of society; and he believed, from what he had learned,
upon very good authority, that Lord Lyndhurst's Bill had not had
any effect in checking those marriages. That Bill was passed with
little or no discussion, and upon the understanding that the subject
would be reconsidered the' next Session. In the French Council of
State, in 1804, the opinions which the Noble Lord had quoted,
rested entirely upon the existing facility of divorce in Frame. That
facility did not exist in this country, and he hoped it never would.
—( Hear, hear.) He thought it was perfectly competent to that
House to restore the law to the state in which it was before
1835, and he would support the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Right Hon. Gen.
tleman was under misapprehension as to the effect of the statute
of 1835, for those marriages were always illegal, and prohibited by
the laws of this kingdom, and expressly declared
so by the statute in the reign of Henry the Eighth. The Bill in
1835 had no particular reference to the marriages now under cons'.
deration, but referred genera►ly to those marriages which the Civil
Courts would riot declare void after the death of the parties, if the
Ecclesiac!ical Courts had not pronounced them illegal during the
life time of the parties. In these were included the marriage of the
father and daughter, the brother and sister, the uncle and niece.
The state of the law rendered it easy for either of the parties du-
ring life-time to void the marriage, and to bastardize the children if
it served any selfish purpose; and it opened a way for the ex.
tertion of money under a threat of procuring the voidance
of the marriage. Was that a state of the law which
ought to be allowed to exist?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Was it not
better at once to declare by a statute that such marriages were
void ?—( Hear.) The Bill, therefore, was no innovation of the
law, and lie believed it was entirely consonant to the moral feelings
of the people of this country.—(Hear, hear.) As for the argu_
ment that the sister of a deceased wife was the most likely to take
an interest in the children and to fill the place of a mother, it was
his opinion that the inducement to be so would be taken away if
she were made a stepmother.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore thought
it his duty to vote against the introduction of the present Bill.
There was one part of the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Liskeard to which he had forgotten to refer. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had adverted to persons quitting this country
to contract those marriages. Now by the law cf Scotland these
marriages had always been illegal; that had always been the case
in that country.
Mr. C. BULLER—Parties frequently go to Scotland to con-
tract these marriages.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL believed that by the law of Scot-
land these marriages had always been deemed incestuous, illegal
and void. He had heard no argument to induce him to think that
these marriages ought to he permitted, and therefore he should
vote against the motion of the Noble Lord.
Mr. WAKLEY thought it could not be very gratifying to the
Hon. Member for Liskeard to hear the effect which his speech had
produced on the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who had
just sat down. He (Mr. Wakley), however, considered the speech
of the Hon. Member for Liskeard to be an eloquent and aagu.
mentative speech.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) was
surprised to hear where the Noble Lord opposite had been
to find materials for his argument against the Bill before the House.
What I was the Noble Lord obliged to go to the council of France
immediately aftor the Revolution He hoped that, after this, revo.
lutions would not be considered stt.ll terribly frightful things to the
aristocracy of this country.--(Cries of " Oh, oh, and laughter.")
The Noble Lord had been obliged to have recourse to the council
of France under Napoleon.—(Cries of " Question, question.") He
(Mr. Wakley) drew this inference from the conduct of the Noble
Lord, that he could findenothing English to support the views
which he entertained. The Learned Sol.. Gen. had alluded to the
Bill of 1835 ; now he (Mr. Wakley) knew that at the time that
that Bill was introduced there was a general opinion in the House
and the country that that Bill had been brought up for
the special purpose of relieving a Noble Lord from
a very awkward situation which he found himself placed
Such was the opinion of the country at the present
moment, and he (Mr. Wakley) believed that it was true.
He was surprised at the manner in which Hon. Members,
who were opposed to this Bill, had treated the_ characters of
English women. How degraded must be the opinion
entertained of the characters of English women.—(llear, bear.)
Why, it appeared that they considered that when the wife's sister
lived with the husband, he could do with her what he pleased—
(Cheers and cries of " No, no ")—that she had no virtue, no firm.
ness of mind, -no power of resisting importunities.—(Cheers, and
cries of " No, no.") If that were not so, why did they pursue the
course they were pursuing, what became of their arguments if
they did not believe such to be the case. But he would have Hon.
Gentlemen to know that English women were as virtuous, as
high minded and as able to resist improper importuni.
ties as any under the sun.—(llear, hear.) It was
the duty of those who sought to restrict the liberties
of the subject to show that the necessity for such restriction ex.
isted. lie believed no such necessity existed in the present in-
stance, and, therefore, he should support the Bill of the Noble Lord.
Mr. HARDY would remind the Hon. Member for Finsbury
that there was such a thing as the argument a fortoiri, and in his
(Mr. Hardy's) opinion, the argument of the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Dorchester, went to show, that if France, after having
had experience of the relaxed law, from 1792 to 1804, even under
the Liberal Napoleon, found it necessary to return to the old law,
how much more necessary was it, in our present state of society,
not to relax that law.
Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, in reply, admitted that his
Right Hon. and Learned Friend was right in correcting a mis.
take which he (Lord F. Egerton) made in his speech in bringing
forward this motion, in which he (Lord F. Egerton) stated that
these marriages had never before been prohibited by Statute law.
He felt the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
said it was inconvenieot to meet this question, and he iLord F.
Egerton) was perfectly aware of that, but he did not care whether
the supporter of the Bill weae Henry the Eighth or Lord
LyndhurstH(Much laughter.) With regard to Prussia, it
was not consistent with his desire to institute any corn.
parison between that country and this, or any other country;
but he thought it would be much better if they would con-
form,to the commons law with respect to their marriage.. By the
Code Napoleon, the wife's sister was prohibited from marrying
under certain restrictions, but a dispensation could be granted on
application to the Sovereign himself. He hoped tha t some measure
would be passed to provide for the evils complained of. In Scotland,
the feeling was, that a marriage with the wife's sisterought to be
allowed (as we understood.) The Hon. Member for Oxford had
founded his opposition to this measure mainly on the practices of
the early Church, and had quoted Bassil as his authority
but his (Lord Francis Egerton's) impression was that the
authority had not borne out his argument.—(Hear, hear.)
he only called upon the House to give their unbiassed consideration
and decision to the question—he merely wished them to produce
their verdict unbiassed, if even it was against his proposition, but
if it was so, he would intreat of lion. Gentlemen to consider the
question, and pronounce their decision as the Foreman of a Jury
gave in their verdict, for it'was a suirject of the most vital import.
ance, and the decision of it would be the death warrant of the peace
and happiness of many families in the country.—(Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided. The numbers were—

For leave to bring in the Bill
Against it
123
Majority
MURDER OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN,
Mr. COLVILLE rose to move for a return of the number of
convictions for the murder of illegitimate children in England and
Wales, in each of the years from 1828 to 1841, both inclusive ;
distinguishing the counties in which such murders have been com-
mitted :—And, similar return of the number of convictions for
the concealment of the birth of illegitimate children.
11 WAKLEY tbought no return could be moved for which
would give more indirect and unsatisfactory information than this.
The number of convictions for murder would not show 1-50th of
the Illegitimate children-destroyed in this country. As the
Hon. Gentleman's object was to ascertain the number of illegiti-
mate children destroyed, he hoped he would withdraw his motion.
It would only tend to deceive himself and the House.
Mr. COLVILE consented to withdraw his motion.