PARLIAMENTARY.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 192, 1 August 1874, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

WELLINGTON. , July 22. The Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Bill was moved by Mr. Steward, and, for the third time in that House, he said he argued that the Bill led to no breach of social life, for at present the people of this colony availed themselves of the law in others, and came back here without any notice being taken. Clearly, then the people were not averse to the measure.

Mr. M'Gillivray opposed it on Scriptural grounds, and moved the second reading for that day six months. Mr. o‘Rorke strongly opposed the Bill, as repugnant to the law or England, and utterly abhorrent to the feelings and traditions of the people where he came from, as well as to the people generally of Great Britain.

Mr. W. Johnston opposed it on the ground that the Bill would subvert one of their dearest domestic relations.

Mr. Shepherd conld not see that the Bill had any immoral tendency. Mr. Steward reminded the House that the British Parliament had, for several sessions, passed a similar Bill, which therefore, was evidently not repugnant to the law of England. The question was called, and the Bill ordered to bo read a second time by twenty to nine. July 23. Tn reply to Mr. W. Kelly, the Premier said that that the telegraph lino to Poverty Bay would not be open before six months.

Upon the motion for the third reading of the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill, the Premier gave it as his private opinion that the reputation of the colony would be injured by such a measure. It was quite true that a similar Bill was passed in other countries, but it was chiefly owing to the large amount of pressure in individual cases. There ought to be only one law for marriage, and it would be quite time enough to alter the present law when the Imperial Parliament did so. A great deal of misery arose from irregular marriage laws, such as the Scotch. He would dissuade the members from disturbing the social relations of the colony. He would like to see New Zealand attractive to all classes, but not to those persons who had desired to marry a deceased wife’s sister.

Mr. Fox looked at the question from a different point to the Premier. What they had to do was to look at the requirements of the people, not at any religious aspect of the case. The question was one that could not be subject to undivided interference, and the State had no right to interfere with the liberty of the subject. The House could not have a better example than the House of Commons and the other Australian colonies. It was only the ecclesiastical element in the House of Lords which kept such a Bill from becoming the law of England.

Mr. O’Neill moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. A division was then called for, the result being, for the Bill, 24: against, 17. The Bill was then passed.