The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-11 00:00:00

tlitt

LONDON
FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 11, 1842.

The recent decision of the Judges in Ireland concern

ing the marriage of a member of the Church of Englan
with a Dissenter ; the discussions on that decision i

?ornament, anti on the Bill which has been introduce,

to make the law different from what the Judges 11;;;dc,
dared it to be ; the motion or Lord EGERTON on Tues•
day for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the marring(
law, the debate on which is adjourned till next Wednes.
day, and the totally different state of the law as to mar•
riage in Scotland and England, must satisfy every mar
that however important and sacred is this most im-

►ortant and most sacred of ad civil contracts, the

law concerning it is scandalously vague, uncertain
and inefficient. In offering some observations, there•

fore, on this subject we find it necessary to begin
by reminding our readers that between the sanctity of
the contract and the enactments concerning it., there is
all the distinction and all the difference which exist be-
tween any great natural fact, such as the tides of the
ocean and a blundering and inefficient attempt to de-
scribe it. We do not mean to say one word concern-
the contract, or the great advantages of marriage ; our
remarks will be exclusively confined to a small part of
the law which has been made to regulate and enforce it.

namely, that part which Lord F. EGERTON brought
under the notice of the House of Commons on Tuesday
evening.

Marriage being the very foundation of families, no
impediment whatever, which cannot be demonstrated to
be of over-balancing advantage, ought to be laid in the
way of accomplishing marriages. In truth, it is a
general rule of the greatest importance, that every
legislative restriction being an evil of itself, none
should be adopted unless it be clearly proved that the
public advantage far surpasses the private injury. It
is incumbent on those who prnpose a new restriction
or defend an old one, to prove its advantages. Thof:e
who resist it have a prima Peitz case, and are at all times
justified in requiring the advocates of restrictions to
prove their utility.

The principal provision of Lord F. EGERTON'S pro-
posed Bill is, that " a widower should be allowed to marry
his deceased wife's sister." Is there anything wrong in
that ? The parties are not blood relations. The sister

may be supposed to have a b:eat interost in the
widower's children, if he have any. A more suitable
mother for them probably could not he found. At
least it is consistent with our experience that sisters
have very generally taken an interest in a sister's off-
spring while the wife was alive, and after her death. We
know no person, unless it be the mother of a deceased
wife, so likely as an unmarried sister, to take a deep and
permanentjuterest in the welfare of a deceased sister's
children. The matrimonial connection which may ensue
is so natural and so easy, that it frequently takes place
even in spite of the prohibition of the law. In fact,
were it not a sort of natural and easy connection, the
law would not think of forbidding it. Now, the question
was, why has the law, scandalously vague and imperfect
as in many cases it ;is, though in this precise, for-
bidden the widower to marry his deceased wife's sister?
Sir R. INGLis fancies, if this restriction did not exist,

Le husband and unmarried sister might, in the life

time of the wife, form some improper connection, or
cease to look on each other as brother and sister.
That is one of those lucre fancies which are the founda-
tion of much mischief. It implies that men will always
do all the wickedness they can physically accomplish.
Such legislators as Sir E. Nous, who confound the
power to do wrong with the actual commission of crime,
ought to take away from the butchers their formidable
knives, lest they all turn assassins of their fellow-
creatures.

The Hon. Baronet also asserts, that it is enough
for him that the universal church, for fifteen
centuries, has always forbidden such marriages,
that the Church of Rome, and the Greek Church.
and the Church of England has always forbidden these
marriages. That is for us no argument at all, and the
more remote the origin of a practice which at present