LORD O'HAGAN ON THE DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 10, 5 July 1873, Page 10

LORD O'HAGAN ON THE DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

, Thb following v a full report of the observations by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland when the bill for legalizing the marriage with a dereased wife s sister was unHer discussion in the the Home of Lordi. The speech is rather long but in this Colony where only the other side has generally been argued it is well worth reading, "it also deserves to be read on account of the fine historical retrospect it contains, and because of its general excellence •*. W O'H»San said-My lords, if the operation of the bill sub. mitted for the approval of your lordships had been confined to i England or to Great Britian, I ohould have preferred to give a j silent vote on this occasion. I cannot pretend to understand th* ; moral condition or the social exigencies of this great country aj well as those whom I address, and I should have been well content to listen to the teachings of their larger experience and more accurate knowledge t ! but the bill extends to Ireland, with which I am better aoquumtod. ! which has not asked for it and does not want it j and where, I am | satisned, the majority of her poople dislike its principle, and would | repents operation. I have formed a strong opinion on the question, and I dasire to express it briefly. In common with my noble friend ffho originated this disscusion, t hive deep sympathy with any innocent persons who Buffer from the law as it exists. I have received communications which have touched me deeply, but ciunot pity tho«e by whom that law has been deliberately violated on the prompting of^ passion or m concession to a supposed expediency, without consider*, toon of the fatal results to trusting women aud unborn children (cheers). If it were possible i» relieve in cases of real hardship, with due regard to tho momentous issues involved in the controversy I suppose we should all be glad to aid in doing so, but we have to consider what is n«hl and wise and for the highest interests of the society m which we live. We cannot play with them according to th« impulse of our feeling. We are bound to deal with them as judg* ment and conscience dictate, when we come to touch that family life which is the very coriwr stone of our social state, and, according to it. moral condition- becomes the glory or the shame— the strength or the destruction of v people (cheers). The noble lord who moved the second reading sought to overbear uj by the weight of authority, and made many references to Germany and Canada and the United States. It was a dangerous argument, and tells powerfully against my noble friend, for assuredly authority is against him. Tho promoter, of this bill are encountered by the harmonious teaching of the Chri.tian Church and the unbroken traditions of the Christian people since Christianity first rose into existence (hoar, hear). Ido not enter on the Scriptural dispute, or doal with the famous passage of Leviticus as establishing an irrefragable dogma; but I look to the vital principle and sure foundation of Christian marriage, declared, not a. was just now said by Canon Law, but at the birth-time of the human, race, and consecrated by the affirmation of the Redeemer that tha husband and wife are " ono flesh," bound together in a perfect and holy union, and each absolutely belonging to the other, with a oomplet*

identity of love, hope, interest, and life (cheers). The great contemplative poet of our age has put it thus : " Wedded love with "loyal Christians, Lady, is a mystry rare ; Body, heart, and mind together. Make one being of a pair !" And from this old conception of the marital relations has always been deduced- the inference that the kinship of the wife should be held the ktnsbip of the husband; and that the wife s sister should never be the husbands wife. This great principle has, unquestionably, been maintained since the earJy days of Christianity. It was proclaimed in the Apostolic Constitution* before the Nicenc Council. It became a part of that great ITyßtem of jurisprudence which was generated when the Christian \ civilization rose on the ruins of the effete and corrupt Imperialism of Rome ; based the hope of the world on the strictness and continency ot the lumily relations, and raised up woman from her low estate to soften and purify the rude society around her (hear, hear.) The Theodosian Code condemned the practice which we are as^ed to approve, and declare the marriage with "a deceased wife's sister to be unlawful. And thenceforth for many a century, down even to our own time, the doctrine of that Code was maintained intact by the great dootors and the solemn Councils of the Church. It was the doctrine of Basil and Ambrose and Augustine. It was the doctrine, equally, of the East and West. It was affirmed by all ecclesiastical assemblies in the variou* countries of Christendom, as they were comprehended within the Church, and it commanded their universal assent. The dispensing power claimed by the Latin Church was, at first, resisted and denied by some of the theologians of the time, on the ground that the prohibition was übsoluti- and mandatory by the law of God. And when that, power was established it continued emphatically to witness the impropriety of a practice which was permitted only in the most special circumstances and for the gravest causes, and to prevent worse results (hear, hear.) So it remained at this hour; for although in the Roman Catholic Church, dispensations are obtained, they are got with difficulty, after anxious consideration and because of plainly coercive exigency (hear, hear.) This bill has nothing to do with marriages so allowed. It gives universal licences. The Greek Church, whatever may have been its decadence and short-coming, is a venerable witness to the discipline of Christian antiquity, and in it marriages of this sort are deemed to be incestuous and incapable of being validated at all (hear, hear.) If we pass from the' ancient Churches and come down to the Protestant confessions of later days, we find that the unlawfulness of such a marriage was asserted equally by Lutherans and Calvinists in Scotland, in Geneva, and in France. Then the fact relied on by the advocates of this measure, that on the Continent of Europe such marriages are allowed iv many countries, comes rather in aid of the argument against (hem; for, iv most of those ciisps, they can only be legalised by special dispensation. The commissioners who reported on the question in 18 18 put tho matter thus : — " Protestant states on the Continent of Europe, with the exception of some Cantons in Switzerland, permit these marriages to be solemnised by dispensation or licence, under ecclesiastical or civil authority" (Rep. p vi.) Excepto provat regulam. The need of dispensation shows that the ajt is dis »pproved. It may be otherwise, in BOine parts of Germany an 1 America, to which my noble friend' so confidently referred ; but the result of the abrogation of the old Christian strictness there is surely puch a state as should deter instead of attracting us, and furnish a solemn warning instead of an inducement to imitate. We cannot approve of indiscriminate connections, lightly formed and dissolved as lightly, on the first gust of temper, or the fir6t assault of unsoverned passion, which it is a mockery to dignify by the sacred name of msirria.-e (cheers.) Therpfore, my lords, on the issue of authority raised by my noble friend, we have the testimony of the Christian vorld, from the earliest times, against this innovation • and for my own part, I should require the most potential reasons to overbear that testimony —

Securus judicat orbis terrarum. We arc tie " heirs of all the nges." and we should not lightly set aside the teaching which they give (cheers.) If you would maintain a Christian civilization in the world, lift high the iJeal of the Christian marriage. Do not abase its dignity — do not dim its brightne f s. The time is not apt for meddling rudely with that great ideal, or, as you are asked lo do to night, with any of the primipl-s which are its bulwarks, and from which it derives its beauty and its strength. Old landmarks are vanishing away. Doctrines of international law aid politicul justice, which long governed the public concienco of mankind, -pc losing their power. Ihe elements of socialistic anarchy are workthrough the nations ; and we should beware of precipitating the time when laxness as to the marriage bond may help to bring us to the condition of Home, as described by Gibbon, « lien "marriages wore without nftVction, and love without delicicy or respect;" and when corrupliou, iv that regard, was one of the worst instruments in the overthrow of the mightiest of empires (cheers.) But, my lords, if all I have said were to be disregarded ; if there were no tradition, and no authority, and uo religious prohibition to warrant tho rejection of the bill, I should still oppose it in tho interests of society, and for the maintenance of the dignity and purity of tho family life (hear, hoar.) I should oppo-e it because it is calculated to alter the relations of the Bexos m a way most sei-ious and most mischievous. The connection of brother aua bister is delicate and tender, and so ought to be that of the brotlicr-in-hiw and the sister-in-law — a cot.necion of love and trust and mutual helpfulness, without the taint of passion or irregular desire (cheers) Aud so it will continue if you refuse to make le^il maninge p wble between them. Temptation is bred of opportunity and dies when it dcpwls (hear, hear) Give the prospect of the marital union which tins measure validates in a househol 1 now peaceful and harmonious, and will the husband remain free from the evil thoughts and wrongful aspiraiions which ho never before indu'.ped because necessarily incapable of action, fruitless of results? Slay not. the wife find her hours of suffering made mure miserable when s-lie feels herself tortured by jealous thoughts of the probable relatiois of hey hu band anil her sister b«sgun in her lifetime and ,hi her pre ere

and to be consummated as soon as the grave has shut her from their sight (cheers) ? And for the maiden sister, would she not be precluded, just in proportion to her modest delicacy or womanly fear of misconstruction, from entering a household where she would be a 1 ministering angel?" And if she did, notwithstanding, enter it resolved to exhibit the unselfish devotion and heroic self-sacrifice that so enoble the nature and the life of woman, would there be no cause for fear that she might sometimes be distracted by the bewildering and corrupting thought that she may be allowed, by the license of the law to mount, as her nuptial couch, the bed on which that sister lies in her agony awaiting dissolution (cheers) ? I repeat if there was no question of religious policy or authoritative teaching in the matter, for social reasons only we should be earnest in our resistance to this bill. And why should we ignore the wisdom of the past, and imperil the hopes of the future by such a measure ? Three reasons seem to me to have been suggested in the course of thi* debate for the adoption of it. It is said that we have no right to limit the freedom of action as to a matter like this, if not absolutely immoral and forbidden. But are those who argue so prepared to press this contention lo its consequences ? Will they do away with all prohibitions on the score of affinity, and refuse to allow tli9 state to impose any in any circumstances ? Will they tell those who urge that polygamj is lawful, and cite the authority of Milton to sustain their opinion," that the state must not interfere, and passion shall have its way ? They cannot and they will not. The Legislature must have power to regulate, more or less, the conduct of the people for their moral good. Th«n it is said that, because so many suffer from the present restriction upon marriage, it ought to be abrogated. A bold argument, involving an evil consequence, if deliberate lawbreakers are to trample down the restraints to which .they were bound to have submitted, succeeding all the more by reason of the very flagramcy, and extent of their offences. And, finally it is said that this is a poor man's question. I doubt it much. lam assured by those who know England well that the persistent agitation of it for so many years has been maintained not by the poor but by the rich, who have a personal interest in it, as leading to the condonation of their own illegality. And Ido not know that the poor man does not need to be guarded as much from doing what is evil, dangerous to himself and injurious to his family as the rich (hear). Nor do T know *hat there is any necessity upon him to act against the law as it exists. In my own country, where such marriages are practically almost unknown, the poor feel no need of them, and no desire to have them (hear, hear). And this observation brings me back to Ireland, which, I repeat, in my opinion, does not want this measure, an i should not be forced to have it. We are. so far, and I thank God for it, saved from the infliction of a Divorce Court such as, you have in England. Ido not believe that any class or denomination- of Irishmen desire such a law, with its train of temptations, evil examples, and inevitable corruptions ; and yet I fear that of it this bill, if successful, would surely be the herald. In these matters we, Irishmen, desire to be let alone. We lave had much to endure — we have had penury and persecution — we have been cursed by intestine dissension, and disgraced by social outrage ; but through all chance and change we have preserved very rich possessions in the sacredness of the Lash hearts and the purity of Irish womanhood, and from these we shall not williugly be parted. Better times have come— material progress carries us onward — civil strife passes away — and equal laws establish; the reign of justice. But we will not lose in the happier day thesoprecious things which we have inherited from tho struggles of the past. I fear that measures such as this would bring them into peril, and, thorefore, I oppose it. I grieve that my conclusion U riot in. accordance with the views of most of those with whom it is my good fortune to act politically in this house; but I cannot falsify my own convictions, and I am coerced to vote against the bill (cheers).