COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1305, 25 May 1878, Page 3

COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.

In replying on the Colonial Marriages Bill, in the debate on its second reading Mr Knatchbull-Hugesson said that most of the arguments against the Bill rested upon small points which might well be considered in committee, while the main principle of the Bill had scarcely been touched at all. It had been a subject of comment that he had not stated his arguments in favor of the fßill on moving the second reading. It scarcely lay with those who did not come down to the House till a quarter-past one o’clock to complain that he had not made a speech, to which they evidently had no intention of listening. [Hear, hear.] But he had, he confessed, another reason for postponing to the end of the debate the few observations he purposed submitting to the House, When moving the second reading of the Bill last session, he had advanced arguments which he believed to be sufficient until something new was said in reply to them, and he had awaited with feelings bordering upon anxiety the arguments which might be adduced by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right hon, friend objected to the title of the Bill, With great respect to him, the objection was hardly worthy of his right hon. friend. It was not, b,e sgid, a Bill to legalise marriages gt all. Well, the answer was that its effect, if passed, would be to legalise in this country the marriages to which it referred in the only way in which they could be legalised. [Hear, hear.] Much had been said as to subordinating the law of England to the law of the colony. Ho did not think that that was a fair description of the effect of the Bill. It would not, and he did not seek that it should, subordinate the law of England to the law of the colony. It was a matter purely affecting persons resident in the colony, and would remove a grievance which they felt and of which they complained, and that without touching a single Englishman resident in this country. But it was said, how could the colonial question be touched without an alteration being made in the law of Scotland H That was an o]d argument, and one which had been urged against every reform which had ever been attempted. The colony had demanded that the question should be brought before the British Government, and Scotland had not. It was said by an hon. gentleman who took part in the debate that a child born in Scotland before wedlock could by the subsequent marriage of its parents be rendered

legitimate, and that that was not so in England. In that case the law of Scotland condoned an immoral act, while the law of England did not. What the Bill asked the House to do was to sanction an act which was not immoral and which was approved by the law of the colony. [Hear, hear.] Why were they to refuse this boon to the colony p Because it was said the grievances complained of could be removed by the simple formula of making a will. But had the House never heard of such a thing as entailed property P How could the making of a will affect the law of entail and settlement? A good deal had been said as to the bearing the passing of the Bill would have upon the question of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister in this country. He had never attempted to deceive the House on that subject. They all knew the exact effect the passing of the Bill would have on that question ; but he would remind the House that the passing of the Bill would have this effect —the stopping of agitation as to it in the colonies and the sending to this country of memorials praying for an alteration of the law. But he argued the passing of the Bill simply as a matter of justice. In the colonies marriage with a deceased wife’s sister was a legal act, and why should they punish people for doing that which was a legal act ? And when it was said the Bill would change the law of England, ho answered it would do no such thing. If they punished a man for committing an illegal act in England, they should not punish a man for doing a perfectly legal act in Australia. The question had passed through a variety of phases. Once it was opposed on Biblical grounds. That time had passed away, and now it was opposed on the ground of social ’ inconvenience. That argument did not apply to the colony, and he asked them, on the other hand, to support the Bill on the ground of justice. Let them suppose the case of two brothers —one remained in England, the other proceeded to Australia and married his deceased wife’s sister; the brother in England died, the other returned to this country with his son, and and what did that son find ? He found that the moment he touched the shores of England —a country which he had been taught to regard as the cradle of liberty—a stigma was fastened on him, and the social status was entirely changed. Was that state of things tolerable ? It was not. It was a grievanc e to the colonists and a scandal to our civilisation. Why, he asked again, should they inflict a penalty upon a man for doing a perfectly legal act. That question had not been and could not be answered. The Bill which, as a measure of justice, he hoped they would read a second time, would do no one in this country the least harm, while it would be welcomed and heartily appreciated in the colonies. [Hear, hear.] Sir G. Bowyer opposed the Bill on the ground that its effect would be to graft foreign law on English law against the will of those who would be affected by it. The House then divided and the numbers were:—

Ayes 183 Noes 161 Majority for the second reading —2l