The Evening Star MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 3018, 21 October 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1872.

A curious problem remains to be solved, in which the Colonies are deeply interested. In every Australian Legislature, no matter how constituted, the Upper Chamber seems to be pervaded by notions not shared in by the Lower. In Victoria, where there is a sort of responsibility to the country, and in New Zealand, where there is none, the same class of thought appears to run in the minds of the members of the Legislative Councils, Like the House of Lords at Home, they studiously ignore all sympathy with the people. We are not insensible to the advantage of revising measures passed in the Lower Chambers by men excited occasionally by keen conflict in debate, and liable through party considerations, to assent to clauses in Acts of Parliament that would operate injuriously to society or individuals, without securing any public advantage to compensate for resulting suffering. If the functions of the Upper Chambers were restricted to mere revision they might be useful. But in that case they must be differently constituted. Such Chambers would require to be made up of men remarkable for clearness of thought, learning, and integrity. They should be men who could give such reasons for recommending a revision of a measure as would convince the Colony there was sound and suflicient cause for their opinions. Unfortunately, they are not selected on account of their special fitness for legislation. Too often they are appointed because of their wealth • occasionally because of personal friendship; and not unfrequeutly, through party influence, candidates rejected at the hustings are placed, in defiance of popular condemnation to sit in judgment on questions they have neither the brains nor education to comprehend. Their assumption of wisdom would be amusing were it not occasionally mischievous. They have an idea that they speak, not to Parliament, but to the country when they utter those platitudes recorded in Hansard , which are seldom even glanced at, because it is not in the Upper Houses that subjects are the most intelligently dealt with. One of their absurd exhibitions in New Zealand has been the rejection of (he Bill passed by the House of lieprescutalives for legalising Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister, as if they, forsooth, were of different flesh and blood from the common rim of Colonists. We have before pointed out the iniquity and absurdity of the opposition to so just and wise a measure ; an opposition rendered comparatively useless, as in spite of any law to the contrary, those who are rich enough have it in their power to defy it by a voyage to South Australia. The rejection of the measure, therefore, has now assumed the form of oppression of those who arc not wealthy enough to spare the time and money requisite to legally contract marriages sanctioned by the common sense and judgment of mankind, and only condemned by a class whose methods of Scriptural interpretation are an insult to the intellect and learning of the age in which they live. Precisely tlio same difficulty is experienced in Victoria as in New Zealand ; but there apparently light is gradually reaching the pulpit, where, sad to say, it is much needed. The following remarks on this subject are extracted from the Australasian ol October 12:— Last Sunday, two clergyman, in two of the loading churches in Melbourne, preached on the subject of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister sermons which were reported in the newspapers. Both of them devoted a good deal of time to the discussion of the Levitical argument, but one of them, in addition, showed a capacity of dealing with his subject in the light of the practical considerations connected with it—a capacity which it is gratifying as it is uncouimujj to lind

displayed in the pulpit. The Rev. A, Robertson, the gentleman we allude to, could see quite plainly that the real point for himself and other clergymen to consider was, that whatever may be the objections felt by some to the legalising of these marriages, that legalising throughout the British Umpire is only the work of time, and in all likelihood of a very short time. The principle has been conceded in the case of South Australia, and must, if demanded, be also conceded in other parts of the Empire. And that it will be demanded is very certain To maintain different marriage laws in different provinces, so that the same marriage would be legal at one place, and illegal at another, and all within the limits of the same rule, is fraught with all kinds of dangers, and possibilities of wrong, and fraud, and injustice. No theological subtleties, were they much less doubtful than in this matter, can long perpetuate such a condition of This being so, it was wise and prudent for Mr Robertson to speak in the following strain, as he did at the end of his sermon “ For myself, I am not disposed to move a finger to procure an alteration in the law, but 1 should not interfere with the liberty of others to do in this matter what t hey think riabt, whilst I feel solicitous that my clerical brethren both here and at home should avoid committing therasclvt s to any course of proc dure which would place them in a false position when the law of Great’ Britain and the colonies will become, as, humanly speaking, it .-oust become, a law granting not to one portion of the Empire, but to all of it, the same permission which has been conceded to South Australia. We must, therefore, face the future and prepare for it.”