MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED’S WIFE’S SISTER.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5143, 17 September 1877, Page 3

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED’S WIFE’S SISTER.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir,—l learnt with much alarm that the second reading of a Bill to legalise marriage with a deceased wife’s sister had been carried in the House of Representatives by a large majority. No such Bill was introduced into the House during last session, and I had hoped that henceforth the Legislature would resist the introduction of any change in the marriage laws having a tendency to lower the social standard of morality on such a subject. I still venture to hope that a Bill so highly calculated in its effects to demoralise the community will not become law. It may well be asked, why should the Legislature deal with such a social question of this kind ? Why not leave it alone ? Is there any general wish for the proposed law ? Are there numerous petitions in favor of it ? What is there to induce the Legislature to deal witii a subject so offensive to those who have carefully considered it ? There are many reasons against tho proposed change. These can only be briefly alluded to. It would unsettle in a cruel manner present social habits and arrangements. Some time ago the Saturday Review called a similar Bill an Aunts Disestablishment Bill. Its effect would be to drive every woman away from her brother-in-law’s house, and from the charge of his children. To say the least, such an uncalled for revolution in longestablished social customs is a matter too serious and too important in its consequences to be effected without first carefully ascertaining what tho feeling of the community is in relation to it. But the proposed law is objectionable on much higher grounds. It would authorise a violation of the moral law, and would therefore have a direct tendency to impair tho high standard of morality which it is most essential that every country should maintain. But this Objection resting on moral grounds is apparently disregarded. It is indeed alleged that

as a wife’s relations are not of kin to her hup- - band, the objection to the marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, is only a sentimental one, and has no moral force. But if this be true, why is a widow to be debarred from marrying her deceased husband s brother ? why is a man to be debarred from marrying his daughter-in-law, the daughter of his deceased wife ; or a woman her sou-m-law . Whence the moral repugnance to marriages between such parties ? Clearly the objection to such marriages can only rest on the same ground as the objection to the others ; though it would appear that highly respectable people have somehow recently familiarised their minds with the latter. But my chief objection to the proposed law is that I believe it to be repugnant to the Word of God. Such a marriage is clearly denounced as wrong in the Book of Leviticus. It is absurd to argue, as some have done, that the Levitical law is not binding upon us as Christians. This is admitted, but it is irrelevant. The evil in question is denounced among the violations of natural morality which brought God’s anger upon the heathen nations, whom the Israelites were commissioned to punish. Their punishment was not inflicted on account of any transgression of the Levitical law, of which they knew nothing, but for the violation of plain moral principles. But waiving this, it is sometimes said, we are not now to be bound by any antiquated notions of morality. Surely so-called advanced thinkers and believers in human progress, can hardly mean to say that men now—even apart from any consideration of the inspiration of the old Scriptures - ought to be less sensitive to, have a duller .apprehension of, moral obligation than a rude people who existed more than three thousand years ago. And this is the only alternative if they refuse to recognise as incestuous a marriage that was deemed- to be such at that remote period of man’s history. This from their point of view would be to make the fatal admission that man as a moral being is retrograding. Itis impossible to enterinto an examination of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, where marriages with relations and those near of kin are prohibited, in a short letter in your columns. Besides, a critical examination would require a consideration of the original Hebrew. But I have no hesitation in saying that the marginal reading of verse IS in the English Bible, viz., “one wife to another,” (implying a prohibition of polygamy) is the correct rendering of the original. But this may be made evident to an intelligent reader of the English, for the renderiugt “ a wife to her sister to vex her,” which ■ is maintained by those who believe that polynjimy was sanctioned, is untenable. It is impossible that a small social or family grievance con'd be referred to in an enumeration of gross acts of immorality. What greater amount of vexation would a" wife experience by her husband taking as a second wife her sister rather than a stranger? An interpretation involving such an absurdity carries its own refutation with it. But the fatal error which has led so many commentators astray is the notion that polygamy was directly sanctioned under the law.

I trust that the House of Representatives will reconsider this subject, and reject the Bill on the third reading. It is to be regretted that this subject has attracted so little attention. My own belief is that to double the number of public-houses throughout the’ country would not eventually produce such a demoralising effect on the community as the passing of; this Bill. This may be thought extravagant. Lord Hatherly once said that he would rather see three hundred thousand foreign soldiers invade England than that a law such as that proposed should exist; for the country would recover from the one evil, but possibly might never free itself from the demoralising effect of the other.—l am, &c., O. Wellington. Mulgrave-street, September 15.