MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2002, 4 June 1875, Page 3

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

During the debate upon the Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Legalizing Bill, in the Legislative Council of New South Wales, the following humorous scene ensued upon the Hon. John Campbell rising to oppose the bill: — _

, Mr John Campbell said that, as the House had determined to go on with this bill, he had made up his mind to make some animadversions upon it. What had induced his hon. friend to bring in this bill he could not understand. Any person could marry his wife's sister, and he did not understand that there were any ecclesiastical courts here, so that such a bill was not required. No person who had any Christian principle _ would be desirous to marry his wife's sister.

Mr Holt: Why not. Mr J. Campbell: Because it was against Christian principle. It was very probable that the bill was brought in by some parson who had lost his wife, and her sister had property, and he wanted to get-that property. It might be £50,000 for all he knew. .

■Mr Holt: My wife Las no sisterliving. Mr J. Campbell did not say she had. His hon. friend had brought up this bill because he said Christian principle agreed with it, but he forgot that the colonies did not stand upon Christian principles— they Have all become secular. He defended it upon these reasons. Why did they have these great exhibitions of cattle and horses ? It was because they wanted to improve the breed. (Laughter.) According to philosophy it was the same with the human race. (Laughter.) He remembered when the boys of the Hawlcesbury were all 6 feet, and 6 feet 3 inches, but there was nothing of that kind now. They would have relations marrying one another, and they would be filling our hospitals with mad, people and all sorts of complaints, and it would only lead to a very large expenditure on the part of the Government, whereas people when they knbw that this bill has been passed would not get married. It was upon that principle that he opposed this bill. There were only one or ttfo in the country who wished that it should pass. He knew that there were a great many such marriages among the lower classes, but there were not among the upper classes, for they were better educated, and he made every allowance for the lower classes for their want of education. '

Sir William Manning: They hare-no £50,000 to get. rMr J. Campbell said Ms hon. friend forgot that the wife's sister when living with her-brother-in-law could not feel fery^ comfortable when she finds that such a marriage would be sanctioned by the Government of the country. He knew that many sisters-in-law were very kind to their sister's children, and did not look upon their brother-in-law in the same way that his hon. friend, Mr Holt, would look upon his wife's sister if she had pae. His hon. friend quoted the Jews, but they were a particular people, and, why it was allowed with them was to keep the breed distinct—(cheers and laughter)—and prevent: them from marrying idolaters. He did not see in the principles of Christianity that they would find this was the case. If Mr Holt would read the canons, he would find they did not consent to these marriages. Mr Holt: Certainly they do. Mr-'iJV-Campbell said the canons did-jspt-look;upori it in the same light as his hoii. friend did.

Mr Holtr: Which canon? '-Mr J.'Campbell did not know which; there were "so many of them. But some Of the Christian bishops—Mr Holt: In what century ? Mr J. Campbell: In the third or fourth. Perhaps his hon. friend did not go back so far as that, and perhaps that gentleman had not the same interest in this Gountry as had ;he was born here. His hon. friend was anxious that the children of this country should not hare good heads-

Mr Holt: My children are native* if I tmnot. '

Mr J. Campbell said the hon. gentleman's children had never gone to the same extreme. If he got his bill passed, he could not tell what his ancestors might Soy' (Loud laughter.) He meant those who came after him. But if. the hon. gentleman's son married a wife, and lost her, and her sister had very large property* no doubt this bill would enable him to marry that sister. He was totally against this bill on secular principles, for all the colonies had; gone away from Christian principles entirely.