2. The promoters of the change next aver, that at all events the particular restraint in question has become irksome in this country, has long since been so in Germany and in some states of America, and ought now to be abolished.
3. That the aunt is the natural substitute for the mother to her deceased sister's children.
4. That this last observation applies more especially to the poor, by whom the abolition of the whole law is, they say, accordingly more especially desired.
I will take these three arguments together. That there may be some people to whom this restraint, like all other restraints, may be irksome, of course I will not deny. The restraint of marriage itself is irksome to many. Whether impatience, on the part of some, of a law that for 1200 years has governed the domestic habits of every family in the kingdom, justifies its abolition, depends on the comparative degree of injury to be inflicted on the impatient few by its retention, or the, at present at least, acquiescent many by its abolition. Now to repeal the law necessarily involves the total abolition of the relationship of sister-in-law. There are only three possible ways in which a man can treat his wife's sister. Either their intimacy will be, as at present, in its degree and character—viz. the intimacy of a brother and sister, in which case the idea or desire of a marriage union will never present itself to a well-regulated mind; or it will be
