When marriage was "redefined" (sic)

And he shall prick that annual blister,

Marriage with deceased wife's sister.

Have you heard about the time when civilisation collapsed because the restrictions on who could marry whom were relaxed? When marriage was "redefined"?

No, neither have I.

It was the social issue that raged throughout the Victorian era - could a widower marry his sister-in-law?

It had been restricted under the old Marriage Acts but then was fully outlawed under the 1835 Act. But almost immediately a movement sprang up to remove the restriction and allow widowers to marry their sisters-in-law. The reasons why they might wished to do so could vary considerably - at one end of society high levels of maternal mortality meant that in many working class households unmarried woman found themselves taking on the maternal role from their deceased sister. At the other end it was common for families without male-line heirs to pass property through marriage and if the first daughter died young then remarrying her widower to another daughter would preserve the arrangements and keep the property within her family.

(Julian Fellowes, if you're reading this, please do not use this as a plot for a future series of Downton Abbey.)

The debate lasted many years with the first bill to change the law being presented in Parliament in 1842. Thereafter the issue came back almost every year, sparking the above verse in Iolanthe. In part the opposition stemmed from the view that marriage isn't just the union of two individuals but of their families as well. But it also stemmed heavily from religious interpretations, with many arguing it was wrong to go against the traditional Church list of forbidden unions.

Sound familiar?

Many widowers found themselves in this position, but perhaps the grandest was Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse, the widower of Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria. After his wife's death in 1878, there was hope of his marrying her younger sister Princess Beatrice. This led to the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) making a rare Royal intervention in the House of Lords when he gave support to the reform but it still failed to pass. The head of the Church of England described the opponents as "those bigots".

There were many further attempts that were blocked despite clear majorities in favour in the Commons, although the Lords was a stonier prospect. One such attempt fell in 1902 due to a filibuster by the "Hughligans", a ginger group of young Conservative MPs centred around Lord Hugh Cecil and including Winston Churchill. Notably at the time they were all bachelors.

Eventually the law was reformed by the passage of the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act in 1907, although the equivalent provision for widows to marry their brothers-in-law wasn't passed until 1921. The Act was straightforward in allowing the marriages, but also made provision to allow individual clergy to decline to perform such marriages themselves (and enable them to allow another clergyman in the same diocese to perform them in their own church or chapel).

Does anyone now find the idea of a widower being able to marry his sister-in-law objectionable? Who actually argues about this issue at all? Has the institution of marriage suffered because of this change?

And this is hardly the only reform whereby marriage is defined differently by religion and civil law. Divorcees cannot get married in some churches and only with special dispensation in others, yet the law did not stop Camilla marrying Charles in a registry office.

Let's hope the next reform of the marriage laws doesn't take another sixty-five years.

The Norway Debate

(This post was written in advance because of everything else that's currently going on.)

Seventy years ago today began what is undoubtedly the most famous parliamentary debate of the twentieth century - the so-called Norway Debate. (Technically the debate was on the motion "That this House do now adjourn" and the title in Hansard is "Conduct of the War" but "the Norway Debate" is the title everyone remembers.)

Over two days the House of Commons engaged in a debate that began on the details of the recent failures of the Norway campaign but soon became a more general forum for discussing and attacking the way the way the war was being fought. Many a famous quote comes from that time, but the most famous of all was that of Leo Amery (right). Amery had a reputation as an incredibly boring speaker, perhaps on a par with Geoffrey Howe, so many MPs were undoubtedly relieved when his speech clashed with dinner. But like Howe fifty years later, Amery rose to the occasion, climaxing with these words:

I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. I do it with great reluctance, because I am speaking of those who are old friends and associates of mine, but they are words which, I think, are applicable to the present situation. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

(The full speech in Hansard.)

There were many other dramatic moments that day, ranging from Portsmouth North MP Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes making a speech in full uniform, with six rows of medals, to David Lloyd George making his final great speech in the House where he said to Churchill:

The right hon. Gentleman must not allow himself to be converted into an air-raid shelter to keep the splinters from hitting his colleagues.

(The full speech in Hansard.)

What is little known is that Lloyd George was seemingly inspired by a cartoon printed that day in the Daily Express likening the debate to that very scenario.

At the end of the debate a division was forced and no less than thirty-nine MPs voted against their own government. After a series of political manoeuvrings over the next two days Neville Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister, to be succeeded by Winston Churchill.

Something I've not seen in easy circulation is the full list of government rebels so here it is:

Conservatives – 33

• Leo Amery – Birmingham, Sparkbrook
• William Anstruther-Gray – Lanarkshire, Northern
• Nancy Astor – Plymouth, Sutton
• Robert Boothby – Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire, Eastern
• Robert Bower – Yorkshire (North Riding), Cleveland
• Henry Burton – Suffolk (West), Sudbury
• Duff Cooper – Westminster, St George's
• Somerset de Chair – Norfolk, South-Western
• Herbert Duggan – Middlesex, Acton
• Paul Emrys-Evans – Derbyshire, Southern
• Ralph Glyn – Berkshire, Abingdon
• Derrick Gunston – Gloucestershire, Thornbury
• Samuel Hammersley – Willesden, East
• Quintin Hogg – Oxford
• Edward Herbert Keeling – Middlesex, Twickenham
• Hamilton William Kerr – Oldham
• Roger Keyes – Portsmouth, North
• Richard Law – Kingston-upon-Hull, South-West
• Harold Macmillan – Stockton-on-Tees
• John Macnamara – Essex, Chelmsford
• Hugh Molson – Derbyshire, High Peak
• Godfrey Nicholson – Surrey, Farnham
• Colin Patrick – Devon, Tavistock
• John Profumo – Northamptonshire, Kettering
• Stuart Russell – Lancashire, Darwen
• Edward Louis Spears – Carlisle
• Mavis Tate – Somerset, Frome
• Charles Taylor – Sussex (East), Eastbourne
• Ronald Tree – Leicestershire, Harborough
• Earl Winterton – Sussex (West), Horsham and Worthing
• Roy Wise – Smethwick
• Viscount Wolmer – Hampshire, Aldershot
• John Allan Cecil Wright – Birmingham, Erdington

Liberal Nationals – 4

• Herbert Walter Butcher – Lincolnshire and Rutlandshire, Holland-with-Boston
• James Henderson Stewart – Fife, Eastern
• Leslie Hore-Belisha – Plymouth, Devonport
• Frank Medlicott – Norfolk, Eastern

National Labour – 2

• Stephen King-Hall – Lancashire, Ormskirk
• Harold Nicolson – Leicester, West

(The numbers of rebels varies accross sources, mainly because many writers have repeated contemporary errors. But this is the full list of rebels.)

For those who want to read the whole debate this is now possible thanks to Hansard 1803-2005:

• Day One: May 7 1940
• Day Two: May 8 1940

There was also a shorter, and far less well-known, debate in the House of Lords on the same subject on May 8 1940.

The battle for the Speaker's constituency

A brief respite from the grind to illuminate on one of the more unusual electoral contests...

The situation is familiar. There was an election for the post of Speaker of the House of Commons at a time when partisan feeling was strong. Many in the main opposition party believed they were soon going to enter government. Some wanted the new Speaker to be one of their own. But many government backbench MPs had different ideas. And they prevailed, with their preferred candidate winning narrowly. The result was a big controversy, with partisan feeling spilling over from the Commons and the Speaker facing an unusual challenge in their constituency. And then...

Sound familiar? Well contrary to what you may be thinking, that isn't a description of John Bercow's situation to date but rather of that of William Gully, who was elected Speaker in 1895. (And you can even read a report of the full Commons debate at The election of Speaker courtesy of Hansard 1803-2005.)

The level of partisan feeling surrounding that election frankly dwarfs anything from recent times - and no, a handful of individual MPs still whining on about Bercow are not going to reverse that anytime soon.

What is notable though is that Speaker Gully faced a contest in his own constituency (Carlisle) at the 1895 election when it was the norm for the Speaker to be returned unopposed. (From 1935 onward this has changed. Forget the myth of the main parties not opposing the Speaker, Labour have opposed non-Labour Speakers at nearly every relevant election to date.) So if history repeats itself as it so often does, does this mean that Nigel Farage's (and Bercow's critics') hopes of an upset have anything to support them?

No. In an election when the country swung heavily the other way, Gully held his seat. The result was as follows:

Electorate 6,798
Turnout 85.8%

W.C. Gully (Lib) 3,167 52.6% -0.6%
S.P. Foster (Con) 2,853 47.4% +0.6%

Majority 314

Of course it may be the case that things turn out differently this time. Who knows?