SOCIAL LEGISLATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 1449, 30 August 1879, Page 8

SOCIAL LEGISLATION.

TO THB EDITOR.

Sir,— Our relatives at the Antipodes appear, according to late accounts, to be ai present somewhat busy in the matter of social legislation. Notably, as regards the opening of Museums and picture galleries on Sunday, our friends appear to be endeavouring to give another practical illustration of the wisdom of Our Lord's saying, "That man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man." I observe that several of the leading London newspapers, including the Times, appear to be ( in favour of the measure, and doubtless before' long the House of Lords and the ohief opposers

of the measure, the Bishops, will, nolens volenf, hive to succumb to the force of public opinion. My own idea is that any measure of the kind which has a tendency to excite and develop the intellectual faculties will have a beneficial influence on the moral health of the public. Church-going and the reading of good books is all very well, but it is quite possible to have too much of even a good thing, and the forcing of religion down men's throats to such an extent as to be productive of a feeling of revulsion is conducive neither to the glory of God nor the welfare of mankind. There is no use in blinking at the truth, that idleness is apt to beget mischief, and that the excitement of the intellect operates to a certain extent as a deterrent to immorality and debauchery. To suppose that the opening of such places as museums and picture galleries on Sunday will eventually lead to the virtual abolition of the Sabbath as a sacred, holy day, and day of rest, and the conversion of it into & day of amuse • ment and dissipation, i 3 probably a groundless apprehension. Nor is it at all certain that the opening of such places will have any appreciable effect on attendance at church. People who consider it their duty t© go to church or chapel will hardly be deterred from going by the mere fact of museums and picture galleries being open to the public on Sunday. Another measure they are at present trying to get through Parliament at Home is an Act enabling a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. It appears to be the bishops again in the House ot Lords who have stopped the way, the lay lords appearing to be about equally divided on the subject. Of course a measure of this sort has only a partial operation. There cannot be said to exißt any universal rage among men to marry their wive's sisters. Probably in the vast majority of cases a man has no desire to marry the sister of his deceased wife. Considerable difference of opinion seems to exist among ecclesiastics as to whether or not such marriages are interdicted by the Bible, and it is noteworthy that the Bishop of London, in the late debate in the House of Lords, did not base his objections to the measure on the biblical language. Even if such marriages were forbidden to the Jews — which does not seem at all clear — yet Christians can hardly be said to be bound by a Jewish law, unless they recognise the propriety of it. For instance, I do not suppose many of us would consider it a very heinous offence to disobey the Jewish law, something like which I think is to be found in the Bible, which forbids a man to retire behind a tree and there eat mouse flesh. As to the moral effect of this relaxation of the marriage law, I expect the proposed alteration of the law would be more condusive to morality than the opposite. Public opinion at Home seems to be growing in favour of the measure, and the Prince of Wales has lately lent it his powerful assistance, and it is said the other members of the Royal Family, including the Queen herself, are in favour of the proposed relaxation of the marriage law. Another notable piece of social legislation at Home, is the attempt to virtually abolish actions for breach of promise of marriage. Mr Herschell, it seems, has introduced a bill into the House of Commons to abolish such actions, except in cases where actual pecuniary loss can be proved. lam rather of the opinion of thejLondon Times, that this is but a half sort of measure, and that the ingenuity of lawyers will usually enable thomto get up proof of pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs in Buch cases. As to reasons for the proposed alteration of the law, it is said the power to bring such actions has been greatly abused for purposes of extortion ; that it is only by a certain class of the community that such actions aie for the' most part brought, the higher classes being much averse to such a public exposure of themselves as such an action involves, and the poorer classes not being able to afford the expense. It seems somewhat absurd to regard the action for breach of promise of marriage as a «alve for wounded feelings. Such feelings can hardly have been of a very delicate or tender character if a wound to them can be assuaged by a payment in hard cash. The question seems to be whether a woman's worldly pro»pecta are injured by a breach of an engagement to marry her. Uudoubtedly such breach of promise en the part of the man, especially if the engagemint has been a long one, may injure a woman in a pecuniary way, by decreasing her chances of making an advantageous marriage in a worldly senße. The famous case of Bardell v. Pickwick affords an instance of the vile manner in which the law may be abused. Such a caße, however, could not occur under Mr HerschelPs bill, as that proposes to apply the principle recognised by the Statute of Frauds to promises to marry, and to make all such contracts void, unless they be formally reduced to writing and signed by the parties. — I am, &c, Colonds.