THE Otago Daily Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1872.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3243, 28 June 1872, Page 2

THE Otago Daily Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1872.

Nothing can be more demoralizing to a community than to have laws upon the Statute Book which are considered iniquitous or unreasonable by a majority of the law-abiding among the population. When such laws are, moreover, found to be sprung from some obsolete prejudice—from some temporary pressure of circumstances—or, still worse, when they have taken their origin in the whim of some despotic ruler—they may be defended by a few who always believe that what is is right; but they are justly condemned by all who fall under their influence. It is to this category that we must consign the Statute which prohibits marriage with a deceased wife's sister. There are many causes which combine to make the legislation and discussion upon this matter very remarkable. In the United States, Canada, South Australia, and Ceylon, such marriage is now perfectly lawful; in England, year after year, the Commons pass, and the Lords — led by the Bishops — reject, a similar measure. Considering how very small the proportion of the population must of necessity be which can be affected by such a measure, we may justly conclude that only the theoretic injustice of its existence can prompt the movers almost throughout the world to urge on its abrogation Perhaps there never was a law defended on such scanty grounds, which maintained its existence so long. When we hare said that -the Jeivs were forbidden to marry two sisters at the 'same time, and that some purists imagine the possibility of social difficulties occurring if such marriages were permitted—we have said almost everything that is gravely alleged year after year as sufficient reason for defending and retaining a law which brands its breakers as adulterers, and their children as bastards. There are no doubt many who suppose that such a regulation is in the eternal fitness of things, that it always has been the law of England, and that therefore it should be retained. No doubt such childish believers will be surprised to learn that the Statute Book has been defaced with this law for just thirty-seven years, and no more. The history of the measure was this -.—Previous to the reformation the canon law of the Church forbade all I marriages of the kind without a special dispensation frotanhe Pope. Henry VIII., desiring to marry his deceased brother's wife, obtained such a dispensation. His marriage was declared invalid, and afterwards valid. These are the sole references to the matter in the Statute Book, though by the ecclesiastical law, such unions were not sanctioned. Up to the year 1835, however, all marriages of the kind were only voidable by sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, pronounced during the lifetime of both parties ; such sentences being very rarely demanded. To all intents and purposes these marriages were perfectly valid until that year. In that year, a nobleman who had contracted an alliance with his deceased wife's sister, was threatened with an action, declaring his children to be illegitimate. The opponents to these marriages, however, waived their objections to this especial union, upon condition that for the future all such marriages should be declared invalid. Surely the most ardent lover of things as they are will hardly find in this history any materials for defence. We hear from England of a proposition for a ' free altar,' meaning the abolition of marriage fees; but some of our conservative politicians seem to be of opinion that the repeal of the present law will tend towards a free altar in another sense, and end in free trade in marriage. Were such a result to be seriously apprehended, it would certainly be well to endure the ills we know rather than fly to those we do not know, but nature has imposed a restriction in the ties of consanguinity, which will effectually prevent any infraction of her physical laws, even thovjgh the Statute Book were altogether silent. When we legislate at all upon the matter, there may be found a thousand arguments, founded upon observation and physics, to support a law forbidding the marriage of first cousins, while it is obvious that no natural penalty is attached to a marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, or the brother of a deceased husband. It is time that we should recur in these matters to some more reasonable guide than obsolete prejudices founded upon misinterpretations of the Mosaic Law. It is, indeed, remarkable that the Jews themselves, while they require a certain interval to elapse between the decease of a wife and the second marriage of her husband, shorten that interval considerably, in cases where the bereaved husband desires to marry his sister-in-law, showing that they consider such a union not merely no infraction of their law, but eminently desirable.

But, after all, it is probably the more social bearings of the question which really interest most of us, and which raise up so many objectors to the removal of the existing prohibition. It is supposed that the bare fact of such an union being possible would destroy that affectionate and unrestrained intercourse which now takes place without offence between those who are connected only through marriage; that

the wife would regard her own sister with, jealousy because she would conceive it possible that after her death her sister might occupy her place. This is perhaps the most unreasonable objection of all, since it is obvious that if such an union is desired it will take place in defiance of the iniquitous law, and at all hazai-ds; and if not, the abrogation of the law can make no possible difference. Still, it is said, with a little more show of reason, that were the law to render such marriages legal, it would render it impossible for a sister-in-law to take care of her nephews and nieces under their father's roof, and that thus the children would be deprived of their natural protector. Probably in a great number of instances such an effect would ensue ; in fact, it does very often happen now that there is a delicacy on the part of the aunt in living with her widowed brother-in-law. So much has been, said, and general opinion runs so much in one groove upon the matter, that the force which lies in this objection has its full weight at present, and would1? neither be increased nor diminished by an alteration in the law. Miss Muloch's admirable novel ' Hannah,' has exhibited with singular power the difficulties of such an arrangement, and what the world thought of it. But this is but a poor argument as against the obvious advantages of giving to the motherless children a step-mother united to them by the ties of affection and blood, as well as by position. Where such union takes place the soeva noverca, the scoff of wits and poets for centimes, would become unknown, and such a consequence would contribute largely to the happiness of many otherwise comfortless homes.

The legal aspects of the law as it at present stands are singularly interesting since the South Australian Legislature, like the importunate widow, gained the Queen's assent to a law in direct opposition to the law of England, for its much asking. This is, we believe, almost the first instance on record of such permission being granted, and it seems to point plainly to a future relationship between Great Britain and her Colonies, which perhaps neither South Australia nor Great Britain was .preparejljor.___ _..