^
 
 mmm':. 
 
 K^'
 
 MAKRIAGE 
 WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EIGHT HON. LOKD O'HAGAN, 
 
 LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1873, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SECOND READING OF THE ABOVE BILL. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 THE MARRIAGE LAW DEFENCE ASSOCIATION, 
 
 25, Parliajiknt Street, S.W. 
 
 1873.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 THE EIGHT HON. LORD O'HAGAN. 
 
 Lord O'Hagan said : — My Lords, if the operation of the Bill, 
 submitted for the approval of your Lordships, had been confined 
 to England or to Great Britain, I should have preferred to give 
 a silent vote on this occasion. I cannot pretend to understand 
 the moral condition or the social exigencies of this great country 
 as well as those whom I address, and I should have been content 
 to listen to the teachings of their larger experience and more 
 accurate knowledge. But the Bill extends to Ireland, with which 
 I am better acquainted, — which has not asked for it, and does not 
 want it, — and where, I am satisfied, the majority of the people 
 dislike its principle, and would repel its operation. I have 
 formed a strong opinion on the question, and I desire to ex- 
 press it briefly. 
 
 Li common with my noble friend* who originated this discus- 
 sion, in a very temperate and graceful speech, I have the sincerest 
 sympathy with any innocent persons who sufi^'er from the law as 
 it exists. From some of them I have received communications 
 which have touched me deeply But I cannot pity those by 
 whom that law has been deliberately violated, on the prompting 
 of passion or in concession to a supposed expediency, — without 
 consideration of the fatal results to trusting women and unborn 
 children. If it were possible to relieve in cases of real hardship, 
 with due regard to the momentous issues involved in the con- 
 troversy^, I suppose we should all be glad to aid in doing so ; but 
 we have to consider what is right and wise, and for the highest 
 interests of the society in which we live. We cannot play with 
 
 * Lord Hoiiffhton.
 
 them according to the impulse of our feelings. We are bound 
 to deal with tliem as judgment and conscience dictate when we 
 come to touch that family life which is the very corner-stone of 
 our social state, and, according to its moral condition, becomes 
 the glory or the shame, the strength or the destruction of a 
 people. 
 
 The noble Lord who moved the second reading sought to 
 overbear us by the weight of precedent, and made many refer- 
 ences to Germany, Canada, and the United States. It was 
 a dangerous argument, and, well considered, does not assist my 
 noble friend ; for, assuredly, authority is against him. The pro- 
 moters of this Bill are encountered by the harmonious teaching 
 of the Christian Church, and the unbroken tradition of the 
 Christian people, since Christianity first rose into existence. 
 I do not enter on the Scriptural dispute, or deal with the 
 famous passages of Leviticus as establishing an irrefragable 
 dogma. I look to the vital principle and sure foundation of 
 Christian marriage, declared at the birthtime of the human 
 race, and consecrated by the affirmation of the Redeemer, that 
 the husband and wife are "one flesh," bound* together in a 
 perfect and holy union, and each absolutely belonging to 
 the other, with a complete identity of love, hope, interest, 
 and life. The great contemplative poet of our age has put it 
 thus : — 
 
 *' Wedded love with loyal Christians, 
 Lady, is a mystery rare ; 
 Body, heart, and mind in union, 
 Make one heing of a pair ! " 
 
 And from that old conception of the marital relations has always 
 been deduced the inference, that the kinship of the wife should 
 be held to be the kinship of the husband ; and that the wife's 
 sister should not be the husband's wife. 
 
 This principle has, unquestionably, been maintained at all 
 times since the earliest days of Christianity. It was proclaimed 
 in the Apostolic Constitutions before the Nicene Council. It 
 became a part of that great system of jurisprudence which was 
 generated when the Christian Civilisation rose on the ruins of the 
 effete and corrupt Imperialism of Rome ; basing the hope of the
 
 world on the strictness and continency of the family relations, 
 and raising up woman from her low estate, to soften and to purify 
 the rude society around her. (Hear, hear.) The Theodosian 
 Code condemned the practice which we are asked to approve, 
 and declared marriage with a deceased wife's sister to be un- 
 lawful. And, thenceforth, for many a century, down even to 
 our own time, the doctrine of that code has been held intact 
 by famous Theologians, and solemn Councils. It was the 
 doctrine of Basil, and Ambrose, and Augustine. It was the 
 doctrine equally of the East and the West. It was affirmed by 
 ecclesiastical assemblages in the various countries of Christendom, 
 as they were successively comprehended within the fold of the 
 Church ; and it commanded the assent of all of them. The dis- 
 pensing power claimed by the Popes was, at first, resisted and 
 denied on the ground that the prohibition was absolute and 
 mandatory by the law of God. And, when that power was 
 at length established, it continued emphatically to witness the 
 inherent impropriety of a practice which was permitted only in 
 the most special circumstances, for the gravest causes, and to 
 prevent worse results. So it remains at this hour ; for although, 
 in the Roman Catholic Church, dispensations are obtained, they 
 are got with difficulty, and because of plainly coercive exigency. 
 This Bill has nothing to do with marriages so allowed. It 
 gives universal licence ; and the memorial^ of the Catholic 
 Clergy, to which reference has been made, praying only for the 
 legalisation of such unions when authorised by special permission, 
 in no degree involves the approval of its principle. The Greek 
 Church, whatever may have been its decadence and shortcoming, 
 is a venerable witness to the discipline of Christian antiquity ; 
 and in it marriages of this sort are deemed to be incestuous and 
 incapable of being validated at all. 
 
 If we pass from ancient times, and come down to the 
 Protestant Confessions of later days, we find that the unlawful- 
 ness of such a marriage was asserted equally by Lutherans and 
 Calvinlsts, in Scotland, in Geneva, and in France ; whilst in the 
 Church of England it has been consistently proclaimed. 
 
 Then, the fact relied on by the advocates of the measure, that, 
 on the Continent of Europe, such marriages are allowed in many 

 
 countries, comes rather in aid of the argument against them ; 
 for in most of those cases they can be legalised only by sj^ecial 
 dispensation. The Commissioners who reported on the question 
 in 1848 put the matter thus : — " Protestant States on the Conti- 
 nent of Europe, with the exception of some Cantons of Switzer- 
 land, permit these marriages to be solemnized by dispensation 
 or licence, under ecclesiastical or civil authority." (Report, p. vi.) 
 Exceptio prohat regulam. The need of dispensation shows that 
 the act is disapproved. 
 
 It may be otherwise in some parts of Germany and America, 
 to which my noble friend so confidently referred ; but the 
 result of the abrogation of the old Christian discipline there is 
 surely such a state of things as should deter instead of attracting 
 us, and furnish a solemn warning rather than an inducement to 
 imitation. We cannot approve of indiscriminate connexions, 
 lightly formed, and dissolved as lightly, on the first gust of 
 temper, or the first assault of ungoverned passion, which it is 
 a mockery to dignify by the sacred name of marriage. 
 
 Therefore, my Lords, on the issue of authority raised by my 
 noble friend, we have the testimony of the Cliristian World 
 from the earliest times against this innovation, and, for my own 
 part, I should require the most potential reasons to overbear that 
 testimony — 
 
 " Securus judicat orbis terrarum." 
 
 We are the " heirs of all the ages," and we should not lightly 
 set aside the instruction which they give. 
 
 If you would maintain a Christian civilization in the world, 
 hold high the ideal of the Christian marriage. Do not abase 
 its dignity ; — do not dim its brightness. The time is not apt for 
 meddling rudely with that great ideal, or, as you are asked 
 to do to-night, with principles which are its bulwarks, 
 and from which it derives its beauty and its strength. Old 
 landmarks are vanishing away. Doctrines of international law 
 and political justice, which long governed the public conscience 
 of mankind, are losing their power. The elements of socialistic 
 anarchy are working through the nations ; .and ^yc should 
 beware of precipitating the time when laxness as to the marriage
 
 bond may help to bring us to the condition of Rome, as de- 
 scribed by Gibbon, "when marriages were without aiFection, and 
 love was without delicacy or respect ;" and when corruption, in 
 that regard, was one of the worst instruments in the overthrow 
 of the mightiest of empires. 
 
 But, my Lords, if all I have said were to be disregarded ; if 
 there were no tradition, or authority, or religious influence to 
 warrant the rejection of this Bill ; I should still oppose it in the 
 interest of society, and for the maintenance of the dignity 
 and purity of the family life. I should oppose it, because 
 it is calculated to alter the. relations of the sexes in a way 
 most serious and most mischievous. The connection of the 
 brother and the sister is delicate and tender, and so ought 
 to be that of the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law — a 
 connection of love and trust and mutual helpfulness, without 
 the taint of passion or irregular desire. And thus it will 
 continue, if you refuse to make legal marriage possible be- 
 tween them. Temptation is bred of opportunity, and dies when 
 it is lost. 
 
 Give the prospect of the marital miion which this measure 
 would validate to a household now peaceful and harmonious, 
 and are you sure that the husband will remain free from evil 
 thoughts and wrongful aspirations, which he never before in- 
 dulged ? May not the dying wife find her long hours of pain 
 made doubly miserable, when she feels herself tortured by jealous 
 thoughts of the probable relations of her husband and her sister, 
 commencing in her lifetime and in her presence, and to be 
 consummated as soon as the grave has shut her from their 
 sight? And for the maiden sister, would she not be pre- 
 cluded, in the circumstances this measure would create, — just in 
 proportion to her delicacy and gentleness and modest fear of 
 misconstruction — from enterino; a home where she would be a 
 "ministering angel?" And if she should, notwithstanding, 
 enter it — resolved to exhibit the unselfish devotion and heroic 
 self-sacrifice which so ennoble the nature and the life of woman, 
 — would there be no cause for fear lest she should sometimes be 
 distracted by the bewildering and corrupting thought, that it 
 might be her lot, by the licence of the law, to mount as a
 
 nuptial couch the bed on which her sister, in her agony, had 
 awaited dissolution ? 
 
 I repeat, if there were no question of religious policy or autho- 
 ritative teaching m the matter, for social reasons only we should 
 be earnest in oui' resistance to this Bill. And why should we 
 ignore the wisdom of the past and imperil the hopes of the future 
 by adopting such a measure ? Three reasons mainly seem to 
 me to have been suggested in the course of this debate for the 
 adoption of it. 
 
 It is said that we have no right to limit the freedom of 
 action in matters like this, if not absolutely immoral and for- 
 bidden under any circumstances and with any sanction. But 
 are those who argue so prepared to press their contention to 
 its consequences ? Will they do away with all prohibitions on 
 the score of affinity, and deny to the State the right of imposing 
 any ? Will they refuse to the wife the privilege of marriage 
 with the brother of her husband, whilst he obtains licence 
 to marry with her sister ? Will they tell those who urge that 
 polygamy is lawful, and cite the authority of Milton to sustain 
 their opinion, that the law must not interfere, an^ passion shall 
 have its way ? They cannot, and they will not. The Legislature 
 must have power to regulate, more or less, the conduct of the 
 people for their moral good. 
 
 Then, it is said that, because so many suffer from the present 
 restriction upon marriage, it ought to be abrogated. A bold ar- 
 gument, involving an evil consequence, — if deliberate lawbreakers 
 are to be encom-aged to trample down the restraints to which 
 they are bound to submit, succeeding all the more by reason of 
 the audacity of their defiance of those restraints, and of the very 
 flagrancy and frequency of their offences. 
 
 And, finally, it is said that this is a poor man's question. I 
 doubt it much. 1 am assured by those who know England well 
 that the persistent agitation of it, for so many years, has been 
 maintained not by the poor but by the rich, who have an interest 
 in it as leading to the condonation of their own illegality in the 
 past, and not as securing a social improvement in the future. 
 And I do not know that the poor man does not need io be 
 guarded from doing what is evil, — dangerous to himself, and inju-
 
 8 
 
 rious to his family, — as much as the rich. Nor do I beheve 
 that there is any necessity upon him to act against the policy of 
 the law. In my own country, where such marriages are practi- 
 cally almost unknown, the poor feel no need of them, and no desire 
 to enter into them. 
 
 And this observation brings me back to L'eland, which, I repeat, 
 in my opinion, does not want this measure, and should not be 
 forced to have it. We have been, so far, I thank God, saved from 
 the infliction of a Divorce Court such as you have in England. 
 I do not believe that any class or denomination of Irishmen desire 
 such a law, with its long train of temptations, evil examples, and 
 inevitable corruptions ; and yet I fear that of it this Bill, if suc- 
 cessful, would surely be the herald. In these matters we. Irish- 
 men, desire to be let alone. We have had much to endure. We 
 have had penury and persecution ; we have been cursed by 
 intestine dissension, and disgraced by social outrage ; but, 
 through all chance and change, we have preserved very rich 
 possessions in the sacredness of the Irish hearth and the purity 
 of Irish womanhood. And from these we shall not willingly be 
 parted. Better times have come ; material progress carries us 
 onward ; civil strife passes away; and equal laws establish the 
 reign of justice. But we will not abandon, in our happier day, 
 these precious things which we have inherited from the struggles 
 of the past. I fear that measures such as this must bring them 
 into peril, and, therefore, I oppose it. 
 
 I grieve that my conclusion is not in accordance with the 
 v^iews of most of those with whom it is my good fortune to act 
 politically in this House ; but I cannot falsify my own con- 
 victions, and I am coerced to vote against this Bill. 
 
 Westminster: Printed by J. B. Nichols and Sons, 25, Parliament Street.
 
 <-^^ 
 
 
 :^' 
 
 ^^^■"f^/^""