MARRIAGES VALIDATION BILL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1537, 5 September 1912, Page 6

MARRIAGES VALIDATION BILL.

SECOND READING CARRIED. ON THE SPEAKER'S CASTING VOTE. Mr. I?, M'CALLUM (Wahau) moved tho second reading of the Marriages Validation Bill, which, as he explained, was an exact copy of Sir William Steward's Bill, portion of which had been passed into law in 1905. He argued that the Bill was only a validating measure to legalise marriages solemnised after April 25, 190G, and prior to the passing of the Act,' between a man and his deceased wife's niece, or between a woman and her deceased husband's nephew. Tim marriages of ihis nature solemnised prior to the date named had been legalised by the -previous Bill. He argued that the Bill he proposed was a reasonable measure to make our marriage laws homogeneous.' The Hon. JAMES ALLEN (Minister for Finance) opposed the Bill. Ho pointed out that if the Bill were passed it would be necessary in a few years, to pass another similar Act legalising marriages made in the interim. There were objections to making laws to validate contracts of marriage which were illegal when they were made. He thought the marriage laws of New Zealand were wide enough now.

Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) supported the Bill, characterising Mr. Alton's argument as "hide-bound conservatism." There was only one grojjnd of which the House should take account in considering objections to marriage, and this was consanguinity. ' Mr. W. H. I). BELL (Wellington Suburbs) said that the class of • marriage which would be validated by the Bill usually took place in cases where a. niece, 'through being an orphan, was taken into the house as a. daughter. To him there was something horrible in a man marrying a woman who had been in the position of daughter.to himself. Ho would oppose the Bill. „ ~, Mr. G.-M. THOMSON fDnnodin North) took exception to the "offensive manner" in which the member for Christchurch North had met the opposition of tho member for Bruce. By his methods, Mr. Isitt drew opposition from those who might otherwise support Jiim. It grieved him (Mr. Thomson) on occasions like this to go into the, same lobby with Mr. Isitt. Ho proposed to support the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that .there were no natural reasons for objecting to such marriages as those contemplated in tb Th? m Hon. A. T. NGATA (Eastern Maori) said he objected to the Bill on tho ground that it, was in the nature of. a washing-up Bill. If it.was justified, then it did not go far enough. What should be done was rather to amend tho Marriage Act to make such marriages leal if contracted in future Parliament should not. be approached every few sessions to deal wiih a, few special.cases. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) supported Mr. E." P. LEE '(Oamarn) Mid the Bill asked' the House merely to legalise such marriascs as had occurred in the past, while it, did not affirm die principle. For that reason principally he would oppose the Bill. If n- Bill was introduced localising such marriages as were under review, he would be repnrcd to give it consideration, but under the circumstances he. would vote against the measure.

Mr. .T. PATNE (Grey Lynn), in supprrting the Bill, said he hoped that: poon a measure would he introduced making such uinrriatrcs legal for all time. Mr. ,T. n. UKCOTT (Pahiatua) raid ho was disappointed wvhen ho found the. measure was merely a retrospective one. He intended to support; the Bill, however. Mr. P. H. SMITH (Waitaki) said he would vote again~t the Bill. Mr. A. H. H.IXP/MAPSH (Wellin-jlon Son Mil what, he lormed the biolo'eiral reasons for the objection to the marriage of persons related by blood, and eacused eucb. marrispes by reference to,

the marriage customs of the Pharaohs. Ho would support the Bill. Mr. n. ATMORE (Nelson) said that there was no conceivable objection to the Bill, and ho would voto for the second reading. Mr. R. M'CALLUM (Wnirau), in reply, said that ho would have much pleasure when the Bill was in Committee, ui altering t:ho terms of the Bill to make it prospective as'well as retrospective. Honourable members had suggested that tho support of the member for Christchurch North would not help the Bill. He assured the Honso flint he was not in collusion with (ho honourable gentleman. Ho thought with them that the member for Christchurch North had not yet attained to Parliamentary style. Ho had not a tactful manner of address. After the division, Mr. SPEAKER said: "The Ayes, are 29, the Noes are 29. It therefore becomes my duty to give a casting vote. I shall give my vote in favour of the second reading. I do so on the ground that if it. is lawful for a man to marry a deceased wife's sister, I think it ought to bo lawful for persons of tho relationship mentioned in the Bill to marry." . The second reading was therefore can ried by one. Legislative Council Reform, Mr. G. TV. RUSSELL (Riccarton)' asked the Prime Minister whether tho House would have on opportunity tin's session of expressing an opinion on the Bill for the reform of the Legislative Council. Tho Hon. YY". F. MASSEY (Prime Ministor) said that the questiou was really ons for Cabinet, but his personal opinion was that in all probability the. House of Representatives would have an opportunity this session of expressing an opinion on tho proposed measure for reform of the Legislative Council. He thought, however, that the right thing had bseti done in submitting tho Bill first to tho Council.