THE DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 154, 30 June 1903, Page 4

THE DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

The annual rejection of the Bill to

legalise marriage with a deceased wife's sister has come to be regarded as a matter of course by the House of Commons. But there is no excuse for con-

sidering this question as a fit subject for humour. In every Christian country in the world but the United Kingdom marriage with a deceased wife's sister is recognised by law. Throughout Greater Britain the reform now demanded in England iias long since been adopted. Yet after nearly a score of attempts to pass the Bill through Parliament, its supporters now find it talked out of the House. The conduct of Lord Hugh Cecil and his following has been precisely' what might have been expected from men who have no sound

arguments to use in their own defence. The "Hughlignns" and "Ceeilians" have long since disgusted a not very sensitive House by their offensive bigotry. Lord Hugh Cecil, a morbid ascetic, who certainly inherits much of Lord Salisbury's oratorical power, lias endeavoured to dispose of the Bill by assuring the House that it represents "a sickening mixture of treachery and lust." At last, after much obstruct ion, countless frivolous amendments, and open defiance of the Chairman of Committees, the saecrdotalists have had their way. Mr Balfour's attitude over the Education JJil! has shown clearly enough that he will not or cannot disregard tut* feelings of the extreme Church party in the House, and so the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill has been once more .sacrificed. It would appear from all this that the Balfour Administration has not yet realised the necessity for considering the feelings of the colonies on matters which are admittedly of serious importance to them. We are not concerned with the condition of the English marriage laws, except in so far as they apply to us. But it is. as Sir Frederick Pollock, the eminent jurist, has said, "an extraordinary anomaly and. injustice that men and women legally married in th.c colonies should < :; YH'itiu.g England iind themselves ,a_:l their children placed under the ban cf legal and social disapproval. Nor is the tone adopted by the fanatics who have been once again permitted to reject the Hill at all calculated to soothe wounded sensibilities. The language used on flu's question by Lord Hugh Cecil and his friends is as offensive to every man and woman born in Greater Britain as it is insulting to the intelligence of his hearers. We iv.ay perhaps make some allowance to these gentlemen, on the ground that having no logic to employ they resort to abuse. But why should the councils of the Empire on such a subject, be swayed by a small minority '•'belonging to an ecclesiastical party, itself insolently disobedient to the authority of its Church? These belated mediaevalists, said Mr. Holman Hunt, some time ago, "demand general submission to a doctrine against which all science revolts, and which human reason repudiates. They insist that the law of the State shall conform itself to archaic canons that are utterly inconsistent with Christian charity and intellectual freedom." Yet it is af the bidding of these men that, as Sir Robert Torrens once told the late Queen, "honourable men and women, having enjoyed full respect and esteem in the colonies, the moment they put foot on English ground are declared to be living in adultery, and their children are proclaimed bastards." We trust that every man and woman of colonial birth resents the indignity put upon us all by the reiterated refusal of the Imperial Government to recognise colonial marriages. The spirited protest made by Sir" John Cockburn two years ago against this "illogical, unsympathetic. impolitic, and untenable position." should receive the active and untiring support of all colonial .Administrations, until England no" longer denies the colonies "the legal recognition of their lawful children."