The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-01-14 00:00:00

AFFINITY IN MARRIAGE,

A case was lately reported in most of the Daily Newspaper,
respecting the affinity of a marriage, which exhibits, in a mote
than ordinary point of view, the absolute necessity of an irs
mediate revision of many of those laws that stand unrepealed it
our Statute Books, which disgrace a civilized people, and the
origin of which can only be traced to those ages of barbarism
and gloomy superstition, when the will of the Sovereign, sal
the fate of the people, depended upon the mandates of a bigotted,
ignorant, and intolerant Clergy. The case was tried before Sit
Jons•Nrceoss, in the Court of Arches, Doctors' Commons,
whetela WATSON and Waxsore were filainties, mad Pant/writ
and Others, Defendants. It was sutted to be " a proceeding on,
giaally instituted in the E, ispocal Court, at Exeter, but ape
pealed from thence by JONNFAIRMOTJTIt and Mr. and MII,DSK•
AR, of Darlington, in Devonshire, to annul the marriage of
Mr. Saxon. Waives', of Iligh Week, in Devonshire, with CA.
TRARINE Kriawata, his present wife, on the ground of affinity,
she being the sister of his former wife. Considerable property
is given by the will of Mr. Warsoa's deceased mother to the
parties promoting the suit, in theesent of her son's death with-
out lawful issue. As he has none but by this last marriage,
their object in the present suit was to obtain a sentence declare
tory of the invalidity of that fact ; thereby illegitimatizing the
children, and enabling themselves to lay claim to the estitt..--
The result of this trial was, by direction of the Learned Judge,
that the marriage was pronounced " null mat void;" the chil-
dren declared illegitimate, the rightful patrimony condemned,
and the parents branded by the Court with the ignominy of in-
cest I We know nothing of the parties; and are fortunate twine,
not to be placed in their circumstances; but we cannot withhold
our detestation of a Statute which demanded a decision that
thus robs a whole family, innocent in the eye of Beavers, of
honour, reputation, and property ! Aud for why ? Because the
man had, c ',Wary to an old musty law, the misfortun, to falliti
love with the second sister, as he bad allowably befare donewith
the first !" Sir J. Nicaau. stated it, as his private judgment,
that the second marriage was " unnatgrat, criminal, and is-
cestuous!" Why then not the first marriage also? If the law
allowed tie first, through freedom of consanguinity, it ought
unquestionably to have allowed the second I Wherein lies de
sin? The Church knows not! or why did the four ttlinisieth
whom Mr. and Mrs. WATSON consulted upon their union, say
" that titers was no harm in if!" which is what every liberal
and considerate mind must say; but, added the Ministers, " it
is unfortunately contrary to the Law of the lAnd."--'
Wehave au desire to advocate indecorous alliance, but to combs,
prejudice and absurdity; and should be glad to know on whet
principle the law of the land has been thus constituted, and ii
still coatianed, as a stumbliagsbluck of misery, and a barrierto
happiness ! It is not from the prohibitory counsel of CHRT,T;
it is not from the interdicts of Moses ; nor is it from the rcpul•
sive feelings of Nature ! Moses declared, " that if any loads
brother die, having a wife, and he die without children. that
his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his bro•
ther."—Luke, chap. xx. v. ‘24. Here the sexes, it is true, are
the reverse of the case before us; bet it is immaterial: for thee,
which is not only a permission to the female, bat an injunrcan
to the brethren, to b.arry their sister-in-law, is indisputably sot
nonymous to a man taking in marriage seven sisters in secrets
lion, and thereby justifying the affinity in question. a eain,
when the Sadducees asked our Savtova, " Whose wife in the
Resurrection will this woman be, for seven had her to wife?--
May it not be humbly presumed, had he viewed it with crimi-
nality, that he would have taken the opportunity of shewieg
them the evil of this practice ? But the facsis, that the prohibi-
tion is neither a natural nor a divine law. It is an absurdity
consistent only with the narrow ideas of Britain's legi.lators is
past ages, or the artificial blindness produced by quiltMling law-
yen, who chase thus to strain the meaning of musty acts and
obsolete terms. In fine, however dense the calumnious medium
may be, through which the poor victims of this suit arc viewed
at Doctors' Commons, theirguilt is purity, and their condemna-
tion praise, when put in competition a his those 'mercenary and
unfeeling characters, who possess no other principle of justice
than the law ; and whose sense of equity is alone exerw3 to
wrench from the only true an& natural representatives of ;heir
deceased relations, that property for which they must one day
account to a higher tribuual ! That such reflections on our bet
may cease, from the removal of their origin, is what we most sin-
scerely desire. May the legislative authority then, of this Mors
enlightened age, be
.condescentlingty exerted to correct ais4
amend them; that whilst the people of England submit to the
heavy burthens daily heaped upon them, for purposes of horrid
war, this solacing drop may be cast into their bitter cup, and
thereby extent; the Taw of 4gerittic coogort-!