September 2.
No subject was more frequently debated in the Houses of Parliament during the nineteenth century than that of marriage with the deceased wife's sister. At least!
the legalizing of such marriages, me Bills, having for their object were introduced into the Legisla~ ture, but for one reason or another—usually because they were rejected by the Lords—they never became law. In 1896, however, a Bill that was judiciously drafted to avoid compulsory celebration of these Hed in the Lords, both the present marriages by the clergy, was car-
King and Prince of Wales voting with the "ayes." The Prime Minister, two Archbishops, and sixteen Bishops voted against the Bill, which at its third reading was adopted by 142 to 104 votes, The measure was eventually dropped, as its promoters did not succeed in getting an opportunity of bringing' it before the House of Commons. The House of Lords has alwi evinced extraordinary interest in the question, and whenever it has been debated the Peers have mustered as if the fate of the Empire depended. upon their decision. A now Bill has now been read for the last time in the Upper House, and subject to the Royal assent, which is hardly likely to be withheld, it will become law. Thus Great Britain will follow the lead of her self-governing colonies, all of which have passed Bills making such marriages legal. The first Act legalizing, such marriages within the Britis! Empire was adopted by South Australia, It was by the Parliament of that State five times before the Royal assent was given. The other Colonies passed similar measures in rapid succession. The bulk of the influence of the Church of England has been con. istently. opposed to the passage of the prevent and similar Bills, and, as was seen from a telegram published in our columns on Saturday, the Archbishop of Canterbury has recommended the clergy not to celebrate marriages with the deceased wife's sister.
Under the conditions of modern civilization the marriage relation may be said to be governed by three laws: civil law; ecclesiastical law; and the laws of nature. The former has been varied at the will of the legislature or rulers. Ecclesiastical law has been interpreted differently at various times, while the law of Nature alone remains stable and The H.-C. herald and S. C. & C. Gazette. immutable.
An inquiry into the civil law would involve a description of the laws in force at the present day among lized nations, into which it is not our purpose to enter. It must suffice to say that, although the marriage laws of various states differ considerably, in Great Britain and Russia alone are marriages with a sister of the deceased wife forbidden. The Russian marriage laws which involve what is known as "spiritual relationship" can hardly be held up as a model for our own. The first prohibition of marriages with the deceased wife's sister in England, so far as we are aware, was contained in the code of Theodore, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 668 to 680 a.p. This code forbade marriage with one's godmother, nurse, the wife of any relation, or a maid betrothed to another. In 1663 Archbishop Parker published a table on his own initiative, which received authority in 1603 from the 99th canon in ecclesiastical Courts, This is the law of England to the present day, with the exception that by Lord Lyndhurst's Act, marriages between a man and his deceased wife's sister, which formerly were merely voidable, are now null and void from the beginning. The question of the legality of such marriages is not of recent origin. As early as 1695 we find a publication by Charles Blount, written "to justified the marrying of two Sisters the one after the other." Since that date enough volumes on the subject have been written to fill a library.
We have seen that the laws of states with only two exceptions permit marriages with a deceased wife's sister, and we must now trespass in the somewhat thorny paths of ecclesiastical objections to such unions, We do not believe that it is seriously maintained at the present day that the Mosaic law, as expounded in Leviticus xvi 6 and 18 prohibits these marriages. In the latter verse it is made clear that the prohibition extends only to the lifetime of the first wife, and the former verse only forbids marriage between those who are "near of kin." In the opinion of the leading classical scholars of Europe these verses do not forbid a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. Nor is the teaching of the Church quite consistent, for while the levirate Inw expressly enjoins marriage between a woman and her husband's brother should there be no issue of the first marriage, the Table of Affinity says that a woman " may not marry her deceased husband's brother." The teaching of the 541
Charch is to be found rather in precedent, and expediency. The former is hardly a reliable guide, since during the Christian era at various times marriages between sach distant relations as third cousins have been prohibited. It is around the question of expediency that most of the controversy centres. It is argued that, were marriages with the deceased wife's sister permitted, no sister-in-law ¢ould be as a sister. to her sister's husband; that under the present conditions sisters-in-law cannot produce jealousy in wives and that sisters-in-law would no longer be able to keep house for their deceased sister's husband without scandal. It is however, very much open to doubt whether, as a general rule, sisters-in-law are on the same terms of familiarity with their brothers-in-law as with their own brothers and sisters, and unfortunately there are many cases in which sisters-in-law have aroused the jealousy of wives. As for sisters-in-law undertaking the duties of housekeeper for their sister's husband, some English judges have condemned the practice in no uncertain terms. There remains only the question of the law of nature, and it, as George Combe points out in his work on Moral Philosophy, declares no penalty against marriage with a deceased wife's sister, whereas it does declare marriages between near cousins, which are legal, to be inexpedient. The harshness of Lord Lyndhurst's Act has caused a great deal of unnecessary hard-p, and it is even alleged, that the wife of a distinguished Agent General for one of our Colonies, whose marriage according to the laws of the colony was perfectly legal, was treated in England as though she were not his-wife. If the new Jaw does nothing but remove anomalies of this kind it will be welcomed by a large proportion of the population.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.