Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T18:10:01.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill” Controversy: Incest Anxiety and the Defense of Family Purity in Victorian England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Nancy F. Anderson
Nancy F. Anderson*
Affiliation:
University of New Orleans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1835 the English Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst introduced into the House of Lords a bill to correct an ambiguity in the law concerning marriages within prohibited degrees. The existing law, based on the 1533 Henrican statute fixing the degrees of consanguinity and affinity, specified that marriages within prohibited degrees could be annulled at any time within the lifetime of both spouses by the Ecclesiastical Court. Lord Lyndhurst argued that the uncertain status of such “voidable marriages” created an inconvenience and hardship for the married persons and especially for their children, who could during their parents' lifetime be declared illegitimate. His specific motive was to guarantee the legitimacy and inheritance of the son of the seventh Duke of Beaufort, who had married his deceased wife's half-sister, a relationship within the prohibited degrees. Lyndhurst proposed that parliament pass a bill to limit to two years the time within which marriages could be annulled.

The consensus in parliament was that the ambiguity of “voidable marriages” should be eliminated, and they readily passed a revised form of Lord Lyndhurst's bill, declaring that all marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity contracted before August 31, 1835 were immediately and absolutely valid. Yet, even as they eased restrictions on existing marriages, they tightened the law for the future by adding a clause which made marriages of both affinity and consanguinity contracted after that date absolutely void.

In the parliamentary debate on the bill, there was some opposition from those who argued that marriages within certain degrees of affinity, in particular a man and his deceased wife's sister, should be permitted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , Spring 1982 , pp. 67 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 3 Hansard XXVIII: 203-07 (1 June, 1835); XXX: 792-94 (20 Aug., 1835); XXX: 948-51 (24 Aug., 1835). The Statutes Revised (3rd ed.; London, 1950), IIIGoogle Scholar, 743:5&6 Will. 4, c.54. “Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister,” Westminster Review, CXIV (Amer, . Ed.; 1880), 43–45Google Scholar.

2 4 Hansard CLXXXI: 355 (20 Aug., 1907).

3 First Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire Into the State and Operation of the Law of Marriage as Related to Prohibited Degrees of Affinity, and to Marriages Solemnized Abroad or in the British Colonies, in Parliamentary Papers, 1847–1848, XXVIII, 238Google Scholar.

4 Beresford-Hope, A. J. B., “The Lords and the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill,” National Review, I (1883), 763Google Scholar. For a fuller discussion of the Wife's Sister Bill controversy as an aspect of the changing relationship of church and state, see Behrman, Cynthia, “The Annual Blister: A Slight on Victorian Social and Parliamentary History,” Victorian Studies, XI (1968), 483–502Google Scholar.

5 Beresford-Hope, , “The Lords,” National Review, I, 761Google Scholar.

6 Wohl, Anthony, “Sex and the Single Room: Incest Among the Victorian Working Classes,” in The Victorian Family, ed. Wohl, Anthony (New York, 1978), p. 200Google Scholar.

7 3 Hansard CIV: 1209 (3 May, 1849) and CCIV: 1871 (13 Mar., 1873).

8 The Times (London), March 10, 1842, p. 5Google Scholar; June 21, 1849, p. 4; April 13, 1849, p.6. “Deceased Wife's Sister,” Saturday Review, LV (1883), 108Google Scholar.

9 Westminster Review, LXXX (Amer, . Ed.; 1863), 41Google Scholar.

10 See Lasch, Christopher, “The Family and History,” New York Review of Books, November 13, November 27, and December 11, 1975Google Scholar, for a survey of the recent scholarship documenting the new emotional intimacy of the Victorian family. See also Stone, Lawrence, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 (New York, 1977)Google Scholar and Kern, Stephen, “Explosive Intimacy: Psychodynamics of the Victorian Family,” History of Childhood Quarterly, I (1974), 437–61Google Scholar.

11 Clive, John, Macaulay: The Shaping of the Historian (New York, 1973), pp. 257–88Google Scholar. A. O. J. Cockshut, in his essay on Trevelyan's biography of Macaulay, also commented on Macaulay's “unnatural bond” with his sister. Truth to Life: The Art of Biography in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1974), p. 126Google Scholar.

12 Forster, E. M., Marianne Thornton, 1797-1887 (London, 1956), pp. 147, 177Google Scholar.

13 Redinger, Ruby, George Eliot: The Emergent Self (New York, 1975), p. 45Google Scholar. Moers, Ellen, Literary Women (New York, 1977), pp. 151–63Google Scholar. Moglen, Helene, Charlotte Bronte: The Self Conceived (New York, 1976), p. 39Google Scholar. Dorothy Wordsworth did not marry, because “her passion for her brother was so intense as to preclude her feeling for any man an emotion which would have satisified the physical as well as the spiritual side of her Nature.” DeSelincourt, Ernest, Dorothy Wordsworth (Oxford, 1933), p. 132Google Scholar. Charles and Mary Lamb lived so closely bound together that when she had a relapse of mental illness and went to an asylum, her lonely devoted poet brother wrote to her that “I am a widow'd thing, now thou are gone!” Gilchrist, Anne, Mary Lamb (Boston, 1883), p. 65Google Scholar.

14 Maynard, John, Browning's Youth (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), p. 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Taplin, Gardner, The Life of Elizabeth Barrett Browning (New York, 1970), p. 80Google Scholar. Blake, Robert, Disraeli (New York, 1968), p. 67Google Scholar.

15 The Autobiography of Elizabeth M. Sewell,, ed. Sewell, Eleanor L. (London, 1907), p. 42Google Scholar.

16 Clive, , Macaulay, p. 273Google Scholar.

17 Even in our modern psychologically sophisticated world, there is concern to deny the erotic component of these intense Victorian sibling relationships. For example, in a letter to the Times Literary Supplement, Aug. 9, 1974, p. 859Google Scholar, Elethea Hayter condemned critics who suggested that the strong attachment of Dorothy and William Wordsworth and other Victorian siblings included sexual feelings. Hayter sought to defend the integrity of these Victorians, as though unconscious incestuous strivings were blameworthy and their uncovering defamatory.

18 Autobiography of Elizabeth Sewell, p. 47. Redinger, , George Eliot, p. 45Google Scholar.

19 Wohl, , “Sex,” Victorian Family, p. 216Google Scholar, n. 66. Greg, Percy, “Why Should We Break Up the Marriage Code?” National Review, VIII (1886), 529Google Scholar.

20 Frazer, J. G., Totemism and Exogamy (London, 1910), IV, 97Google Scholar. Freud, Sigmund, Totem and Taboo, trans, by Brill, A. A. (New York, 1918), p. 14Google Scholar. Havelock Ellis disagreed with Frazer and Freud about the strength of instinctive incestuous feelings which need to be repressed. Ellis believed that familiarity has a “dulling effect … on the development of sexual stimuli.” He acknowledged his own incestuous passion for his sister, but attributed it to their long separation during puberty. Grosskurth, Phyllis, Havelock Ellis (New York, 1980), p. 385Google Scholar.

21 Harrison, J. F. C., The Early Victorians, 1832-51 (London, 1971), p. 4Google Scholar.

22 “Deceased Wife's Sister,” Saturday Review, LV, 815Google Scholar. Letter to The Times, April 13, 1849, p. 6.

23 Forster, , Marianne Thornton, pp. 175, 184Google Scholar. Just as Marianne Thornton and Macaulay were probably expressing unconscious defensive as well as rational practical reasons for opposing the marriage, so did Christina Rossetti when she refused to greet Holman Hunt's second wife because she was his deceased wife's sister. Rossetti in her moral indignation was acting as a loyal daughter of the church, but she may also have been defending against her own conflicted sexual feelings for her brothers. Weintraub, Stanley, Four Rosettis: A Victorian Biography (New York, 1977), p. 210Google Scholar.

24 Bell, Quentin, Virginia Woolf (New York, 1972), pp. 26, 45-56, 75Google Scholar.

25 For examples of this argument, see letter to The Times, April 13, 1849, p. 6. Beauchamp, Earl, “Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister,” Church Review, XLVII (1886), 400–02Google Scholar. 3 Hansard CCXIV: 1891 (13 Mar., 1873).

26 Quoted in [Rogers, Henry], “Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister,” Edinburgh Review, XCVII (1853), 332Google Scholar.

27 Arnold, Matthew, Culture and Anarchy (New York, 1969), p. 184Google Scholar.

28 “Science and the Deceased Wife's Sister,” Saturday Review, XCIX (1905), 443–44Google Scholar.

29 3 Hansard CCIV: 1902 (13 Mar., 1873).

30 [Rogers, ], “Marriage,” Edinburgh Review, XCVII, 326–27Google Scholar.

31 “First Report of the Commissioners,” P.P., XXVIII, 388. Greg, , “The Marriage Code,” National Review, VIII, 529Google Scholar.

32 3 Hansard CCXIV: 1891 (13 Mar., 1873). See also Oxon, J. F. [Bishop of Oxford], “Sisters-in-Law,” Nineteenth Century, XX (1886), 674Google Scholar. The Bishop of Oxford (John MacKarness) was remarkably independent and supported church disestablishment on many issues, but he was strongly against the Wife's Sister Bill.

33 Letter to The Times, May 8, 1849, p. 7.

34 3 Hansard CCXIV: 1891 (13 Mar., 1873).

35 Quoted in Todd, W. G., “The Roman Catholic Marriage Laws,” Contemporary Review, XXVI (1875), p. 423Google Scholar. The irony in the argument that there should be no sexuality within the family was noted by Lord Bramwell. He praised the eloquence of the idea that the family circle was a “sacred precinct, the purity of whose air is to resemble that of heaven,” yet said it was unintelligible, because the center of that circle was the marriage relationship of a man and his wife. LordBramwell, , “Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister,” Nineteenth Century, XX (1886), 413Google Scholar.

36 “First Report of the Commissioners,” P.P., XXVIII, 242.

37 3 Hansard CCXTV: 1891-92 (13 Mar., 1873). Richey, Thomas, “The Theory of Marriage and Its Consequences,” Church Review, XLVII (1886), 289Google Scholar.

38 3 Hansard CIV: 1191 (3 May, 1849). CCIV: 283 (15 Feb., 1871). CCXIV: 1896 (13 Mar., 1873).

39 [Rogers, ], “Marriage,” Edinburgh Review, XCVII, 337Google Scholar. 3 Hansard CCIV: 1907 (13 Mar., 1873).

40 “First Report of the Commissioners,” P.P., XVIII, 386. Letter to The Times, May 8, 1849, p. 7. Greg, , “Marriage Code,” National Review, VIII, 530Google Scholar. Beresford-Hope, the bill's chief parliamentary opponent, may have especially felt the need for a strong incest law in that, after his father's death, his mother married the illegitimate son of her uncle.

41 Russell, G. W. S., Matthew Arnold (New York, 1904), p. 203Google Scholar. Chapman, Theodora, “Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister,” Nineteenth Century and After, LIII (1903), 985Google Scholar.

42 Linton, E. Lynn, “The Philosophy of Marriage,” Universal Review, II (1888), p. 32Google Scholar. Wolff, Robert Lee, Sensational Victorian: The Life and Fiction of Mary Elizabeth Braddon (New York, 1979), p. 345Google Scholar.

43 3 Hansard CCXIV: 1872 (13 Mar., 1873).

44 Morley, John, Life of Gladstone (New York, 1903), I, 569Google Scholar. 3 Hansard CCXII: 432 (1 July, 1872).

45 Oxon, , “Sisters-in-Law,” Nineteenth Century, XX, 674Google Scholar. “Science,” Saturday Review, XCIX, 443.3 Hansard CCXIV: 1892 (13 Mar., 1873)Google Scholar. There was also an argument against the bill based on freedom of choice, that the bill would morally compel an unwilling widower to marry his wife's sister. One young lord even thought it would legally require a man to do so. The lord went to great effort, unusual for him, to journey to parliament to oppose the bill. He explained that “I do think it'll be an infernal shame if they oblige a chap to marry his deceased wife's sister—if he don't want to.” Brookfield, Frances M., The Cambridge “Apostles” (London, 1906), p. 242Google Scholar.

46 Bramwell, , “Marriage,” Nineteenth Century, XX, 405Google Scholar.

47 3 Hansard CCIV: 292 (15 Feb., 1871).

48 Beresford-Hope, , “The Lords,” National Review, I, 758Google Scholar. Oxon, , “Sisters-in-Law,” Nineteenth Century, XX, 671Google Scholar. The fact that the pre-Raphaelite painter W. Holman Hunt, who had gone abroad to marry his deceased wife's sister, was chairman of the Marriage Law Reform Association must have strengthened the idea that supporters of the bill were self-interested and somewhat disreputable. The notorious Monckton Milnes, elevated to Lord Houghton, a longtime supporter of the bill in the Commons and then the Lords, could be cited as another example.

49 Greg, , “Marriage Code,” National Review, VIII, 528Google Scholar. 4 Hansard CLXXX: 1437 (14 Aug., 1907).

50 3 Hansard CIV: 1153 (3 May, 1849).

51 3 Hansard CCXIV: 1879-83 (13 Mar., 1873). 4 Hansard CLXXXII: 364 (20 Aug., 1907).

52 3 Hansard CCXIV: 1871 (13 Mar., 1873).

53 Oxon, , “Sister-in-Law,” Nineteenth Century, XX, 672Google Scholar. Greg, , “Marriage Code,” National Review, VIII, 531Google Scholar. “Deceased Wife's Sister,” Saturday Review, LV, 116Google Scholar.

54 Darwin, Charles, Fertilization of Orchids (1862)Google Scholar, quoted in Adam, William, “Consanguinity in Marriage, Part I,” Fortnightly Review, II (1865), 723Google Scholar.

55 Darwin, George H., “Marriage Between First Cousins in England and Their Effects,” Fortnightly Review, XXIV (1875), p. 41Google Scholar. Westminster Review, CXXX (Amer, . Ed.; 1863), 48Google Scholar.

56 Adam, William, “Consanguinity in Marriage, Part II,” Fortnightly Review, III (1865), 87Google Scholar.

57 3 Hansard CCXIV: 1876 (13 Mar., 1873). Lisle, Walter, “Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister”, Westminster Review, CLX (1903), 158–59Google Scholar.

58 3 Hansard CCII: 817 (25 July, 1870) and CCII: 1006-09 (26 July, 1870).

59 Kin, , “The Marriage of the Near,” Westminster Review, CIV (Amer, . Ed.; 1875), 147–55Google Scholar.

60 4 Hansard CLXXX: 1425-1512 (14 Aug., 1907) and CLXXX: 348-411 (20 Aug., 1907). The Statutes Revised (3rd. ed.; London, 1950), XIVGoogle Scholar, 287-88: 7 Edw. 7, c.47.

61 Ellis, Havelock, Studies in the Psychology of Sex (Philadelphia, 1906), II, 505Google Scholar.

62 Quoted in Firth, Raymond, Herbert, Jane, Forge, Anthony, Families and the Relatives: Kinship in a Middle Class Sector of London (New York, 1970), p. 191Google Scholar.

63 The Statutes Revised (3rd. ed.; London, 1950), XIV, 444–46Google Scholar: 8 Edw.7, c.45.

64 Bristow, Edward J., Vice and Vigilance (Totowa, N. J., 1977), p. 191Google Scholar. Wohl, , “Sex,” Victorian Family, p. 209Google Scholar.

65 4 Hansard CXXIV: 697 (24 Feb., 1903) and CXXV: 820 (16 July, 1903).