THE DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5438, 31 August 1878, Page 2

THE DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIKES. Sir, —I shall feel obliged if you will once more insert my annual protest against the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill. Many believe that such marriages are not forbidden by Scripture, but only by obsolete Church law. But in Leviticus xviii., the only part of the Bible which rules in this matter, all through the chapter marriages of affinity are forbidden. See words of 17th verse, “ They are her near kinswomen.” The 18th verse, apparently, as read in our version, permits such a marriage. The exact rendering of the Hebrew for “ a wife to her sister” is given in tho margin as “one wife to another.” In other words, the verse- forbids polygamy, and does no more. These marriages of kin are forbidden, not to tho Jews only, but to all ; for the Cananites are condemned for such interraarryings. It is a strange argument that an Englishman, A.D. 1878, may do that which was utterly condemned in a Cananite u.c. 1500. But such marriages are, and always have been, forbidden by English law. A law of Henry VIII., repealed, but re-enacted in the reign of Elizabeth, runs, “ We declare it to be lawful tor persons to marry who are not prohibited by God’s law.” The English law, then, avowedly rests upon the Bible in this matter. Up to 1835, those whb broke this law took their chance of the consequences. Such marriages, with any issue, would have been at once stamped as illegal, if any one had brought an action against tho contractors. By Lord Lyndhurst’a Act, 1835, they are declared, to remove any possible doubt, to be at once null and void. There was no need to prove their nullity by an action in a Court of Law. Such marriages are, then, contrary to God’s law and to the old statute law of England. But further, I object to such marriages because there is not any need shown for a change in the law, because of a largely felt grievance. There was no wish for such change until some rich folk, who had deliberately broken the law of their country, endeavored to get the law changed, and so to have removed the ban of their illegal acts. These are now seeking to change the law of England, on the plea that the colonies have made such marriages legal. Yon can see placards in England everywhere, running, “ Why should that bo illegal in England which is legal in the colonies.” I should like to see a law proposed in our Parliament that, because a forger had broken the law, it was a necessary thing to relieve him and his children by making forgery legal. How is it, I would ask, that very many who advocate this change of law do not like the notion of a brother marrying his deceased brother’s wife! But where is the difference in principle between this or that marriage?—X am, &0., A. Stock.