The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2960, 14 August 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1872.

One of tho strangest exhibitions of the session seems to have taken place on the debate on legalising marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. One would have imagined that no obstacle would have been thrown in the way of so obviously just and politic a measure ; yet a party was formed in the House of Representatives who, by a series of motions, endeavored to introduce clauses which they knew on the Act being submitted to the approval of Her Majesty would insure its rejection. It is hard to divine on what grounds this very necessary alteration in the law of marriage is opposed. If men tell us that they are adverse to it on religious grounds, their scruples, so far as they themselves are concerned, ought to command respect; but just because they have no right to dictate religious dogmas to others, their own peculiar notions should not he allowed to be forced upon others, Them are fixed moral laws on which our legislation is based. They are received by all Christian sects and creeds as true, and as applicable to men in their relation to each other., Tho marriages in question do not infringe in the slightest degree any one of these laws, and any objections raised against them are based upon purely imaginary relationships, which have no foundation in nature. These so called religious objections to an obviously necessary alteration in our social laws, partake of that ecclesiastical assumption that presumes to judge of the interpretation that men are to put upon certain passages of Smipture. We can hardly believe that unbiassed reason and sound scholastic reseal ch would lead to any other conclusion than that such marriages ought to be legalised, and the House has arrived at the conclusion that all future unions of that character shall be lawful. In this mutilated form this most important Act is to be allowed to pass. We can scarcely speak too oOi'jugly iu. liUiulcmimOii'ii i/f ouVl, « course of proceeding as the Opposition has adopted. When some years ago a Bill was introduced with the professed intention of preserving the honor and purity of the legal profession, to such an extent did Parliament carry its refined notions of the necessary attributes of a legal pracaitioner, that any peccadillo of the past which had been discovered and visited with punishment, was held sufficient reason for disqualification in all time. The people remonstrated, but the House was inexorable. The Act was made retrospective, and no end of bunkum was paraded before the country of the necessity ot sacrificing one solitary attorney to its withering influence. But in this case, which involves no moral wrong on the part of the parent, scores, if not hundreds, in New Zealand are to have their legal status witheld, and to be placed a* a disadvantage compared with those who in future will be born under precisely similar conditions. And for what purpose, and to what end, is this injustice to lie perpetrated I Merely because an opposition has been raised by ignorant oi superstitions men to the passing of an Act approved of by the ablest, most philanthropic, and moral of England’s statesmen, adopted with the sanction of Her Majesty’s Government in one of the most order-loving and racial of British Colonies, South Australia, and, as Lord Kimberley truly says, one that is a necessity in almost every British dependency. However, we trust that the Government will not allow the Act to be withdrawn, because of the heartless and wicked alteration introduced into it by a tyrannical faction. It is better that the Bill should pass in its mutilated form than be withdrawn, for otherwise another session would pass before the measure would become law; and if those who may contract such unions in future have the sanction of tho law, there will be no difficulty in passing a separate Act legalising the past. We should have been glad to see the countrymoved on behalf of the families of numbers of our most respected fellowcolonists. They can hardly be expected to take action in the matter themselves. Their position, though acknowledged honorable by society, is one of delicacy in regard to their wives and families. The course they have adopted has undoubtedly, as a rule, been taken from the highest and best motives. Husbands bereaved of their wives have sought to place their children under the tuition, cure, and

guardianship of those who feel express interest in their welfare. If the aunt will not accept the charge, they must lie placed under the superintendence of a hireling or a stranger ; and in either case the world’s experience proves they are neither so well cared for, so well tutored, nor so happy. Such marriages, therefore, are usually formed between persons ot high moral and intellectual attainments : sonic of the best and worthiest are thus united. Yet Society has not moved on their behalf. We trust there will be no necessity for it, although after such an exhibition ot ignorance and superstition in the House of Representatives, we almost fear the fate of the Bill this session.