The sun., 1873-07-25
The Deceased witc's Sister Question

HN oNNNh~'u QutNNiOus
At every session of the British parlia-
ment a bin is introduced in the House of
| Commons t. remove the existing pruhibi-
I ton of marriage between a man and the
sister OF his deceased wife.
The last time the bil was brought for
ward ii did not find ~ many supporters Us
on the previous occasion; and its advo-
} Gates are apparently not gaining much
! ground. This strenuous opposition on the
! part Of many people ia the effect Of their
I early education; but there are also many,
AMI among them mon OF distinction ana
ability, in England who are firmly con-
/ vIE.od That the relationship is such a. tD
make maIring" very Objectionable
morally, If not absolutely vicious. Ia this
country the marriage Of widower with
his deceased wifc's sister Is of so frequent
occurrence that of.cn within few month";
after the funeral, runors of the probable
engagement OF ttIe beroaved husband to
his sistCr-m-law gain creIeucc. In fact,
such marriages are taking pltct every
day, and sometimes they result very hap
pdy.
The advocates OF the bill in England
urge in its favor that when n widowcr has
children the person who is best fitted to
watch over and care for them is naturally
their mothers sister; aud that il j. much
better for them to be iutrustcd to her care
than to that OF - stranger 1t is also said
that the prohibition i an arbitrary and
unnatural one; that there can be nothing
inherently wrong in such n marriage, aul
that the prohibition causes great unhup-
pincss.
one practical result j. that English
men are forced to leave their country
and 90 to France or the United State.
where the marriage will be legal; or they
go through the form of u marriage with
their deceased wirc'S sister and remain in
England The unplclsaut consequence OF
adopting the latter alternative is that in
the eyes of the law il is the same as liviug
with II mistress. But IA case has lust come
before the Lord Chancellor which show,
that the equity courts are not disposed to
enforce tins view of the subject.
The personal representative of the
late Capt WILLIAM HARpINGE OF Aston.
near Birmingham, brought suit for
the purpose Of setting aside as con-
trary to public morality aud illegal
deed executed by Capt HARDISGE
III A2b~i u lllllA4tlliIH Ten EiLlts III the
Alliance Marine lnsurance Compauv
and sixteen in the London Chartered
Bank of Australia 10 certain persons in
trust for ISABELLA BUCKroN, Il sister of
his deceased wife. A few days after the
execution Of the decd he went through
the form of II marriage with Miss BUCK
ToN-now Mrs. JENKINs--with whom he
lived tlll his death in January, 1868. For
the plaintiff il was cDntendcl that the set
tlement was void, n being founded upon
an Illegal consideration, the future CO.
habitation of two persons within the pro-
hlbited degrees. Possibly the testator
hlnst II could not have enforced retruns-
fen of the stock but his legal personal
representative, ~ not being DdrticeDS
CrimiRiS could.
The Lord Chancellor said the only evil
denre with respect to the reason why the
settlement wa1 made was the statement
Of ISABELLA JENKINS that she regarded il
rs a free and voluntary gift, and that it
was not offered to her or accepted by her
for the purpose of continuing II promise of
oohabitation previously made. 1t was mr.
gued that ii was the duty of the Court to
discourage, on the ground of public pol-
VS. iNbAAphN lllllEfN DtlWttn persons
VINO were within the prohibited degrees
OF consangninlty or affinity; but he Hhe
Lord ChancelloD was not aware OF any
law which imposed that particular duty
ON court of equity. That matter be-
longed to II different court Relief was
now asked by the representative of the |
voluntary and sole donor on the ground of
tue iliesality OF his own intention, ten |
years before the bin was filed, to execute |
"a trust for the benefit of the defendant |
Ills Lordship could see no legal ground of |
disputing the efficacy of the trsinsfer
whereby tho shares were vested In the
trustees, and the equities (the court being
u court of equity and not a court of
moral censorship were In favor OF the
lady The bill was dismissed with costs.
This decision Of course does not affect