PARLIAMENTARY.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 32, 12 August 1867, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

{from oue special correspondent.) DIVORCE. On Thursday, Mr Travers moved for leave to bring in a Law of Divorce Bill. The mover proposed to confine the operations of the bill to adultery and gross cruelty. Some members thought that habitual drunkenness should be added, but he thought it would be difficult to define to what extent a man would be a a drunkard before his drunkennness would incapacitate him from doing the duties of a husband, but as drunkenness invariably led to gross cruelty to the wife, a divorce might be obtained on that ground. Mr O'Neill opposed the introduction of the measure an religious grounds. Mr Stafford explained that the Government w r ere not prepared to bring in such a measure themselves as there were grave doubts whether a divorce obtained in New Zealand for the dissolution of a marriage contracted in England would be binding in England, and such parties getting married in the colony might find themselves liable to be tried for bigamy, and the children of the New Zealand marriage, bastards in England, and therefore the Government left it an open question. The Commissioner of Customs warmly supported the measure. Some members replied to the objections of the Premier and quoted Lord Ly'udhurst as showing the position of a man who formerly

might have got married in England and afterwards having got a divorce in Scotland and again married in Scotland and returned to England with his Scotch wife, his divorced wife followed bun and obtained a judgment from the Ecclesiastical Court for the restitution of conjugal rights, so that the man would have two lawfully married wives at the same time, and the children of both marriages would be legitimate, as the Scotch marriage would be held valid in England, so that according to that view of the case the worst that could happen to a man divorced in New Zealand would be that he might have two lawful wives living at the same time if he happened to return to England. Mr Travers also mentioned that the Victorian Act had received Her Majesty’s assent, but he was not prepared to say that that made the judgment passed in Victoria valid in England. Your correspondent was surprised that none of the speakers pointed out the fact that no Eill affecting the marriage laws can receive the assent of any Governor of a British colony; all such Bills must be reserved for her Majesty’s assent, and the Hew Zealand legislators may depend upon it that if they depart from the principles upon which the English Act is based that Her Majesty would be advised by the [lmperial Government to withhold her assent :rom the measure.

In the Victorian Act a man may get a divorce from his wife for adultery, and a woman may get a divorce from her husband for gross cruelty and adultery, the difference being made between the man and woman, because it was thought that an adulterous woman injured her husband and society more than an adulterous husband did his wife. There might he doubts as to the parentage of children of the false wife, but none as to the parentage of the true wife whatever the husband's conduct might have been. The question is likely to be keenly contested in the House, and the principles adopted iu the Victorian Act may throw some light on this important question.

NATIVE LANDS ACT AMENDMENT REPEAL BILL Mr Carleton moved the second reading of this Bill, the debate occupied the house four long weary hours. The mover wasted more than half that time in ,talk and twaddle, I cannot call it a speech, but Mr Richmond called it clap-trap, and your correspondent thinks no other word is so expressive of Mr Carlcton’s performance as clap-trap-twaddle. If the hon member had made a similar attempt at stamp oratary out of doors he would have been hooted or pelted off the stamp, and I am astonished that the House tolerated such expressions as he uttered to be spoken on the floor of their Honorable House. No other British Colonial Legislature would have tolerated such language as that expressed by Mr Carleton. He tried to be funny and sensational by turns, when speaking of the Governor, calling His Excellency the great “ land jobber,” and the “ head land jobber ” and the “ head land broker ”of the colony; using as many grimaces as a monkey would do if placed on hot bricks, as he continually tried to be either funny or sensational when accusing the Governor of robbing the natives of their lands, and his “professed ” object in asking for a repeal of the Act referred to was for the purpose of taking all power out of the hands of the Governor who can do nothing without the advice of his Ministers who are responsible to the House of Representatives for the advice the}' offer to His Excellency, and the power now vested in the Governor was to be vested in a Judge of the Native Court who is responsible to no one. lam surprised—l am astonished—greatly astonished that the House permitted the hon. member to speak of Her Majesty,s representative, and the first gentleman in the colony as if he were a partizan in their hon. house.

Friday, August 2. The Government has to-night struck another mortal blow at the Provincial institutions of New Zealand. At a late hour the Municipal Corporation Bill was introduced and the second reading will come off on Thursday next. It is a Bill founded <3n the Victorian Act where it has proved so eminently successful that there are in that colony upwards of fifty Municipal Corporations with upwards of two millions sterling of rateable property. The present Victorian Act has been in operation for a number of years and no complaint of its working have ever been made from any one of the fifty townships in that colony that have the privilege of managing their own local affairs without the intervention of a Provincial Government. Permit your correspondent to ask who are the centralizing party in New Zealand, is it the Ultra-Provincial party that arc now strongly opposed to the introduction of such measures as the Local Government and the Municipal Corporation Bills, or is it the party that support those measures. I believe that your Wairarapa representative, Mr Bunny since the commencement of the session has seen that the Government that he then so strongly opposed were the party most deserving o ( support in the present crisis of local Government organisation. At all events I notice that in the divisions taking place in the House, his name will be found on the same side as members of the Government, so that Mr Bunny may now be counted on the side of decentralization. There is really something in a name after all. It is well known that a good cry generally carries elections, that being so it astonishes me that the party introducing these decentralizing Bills should'have accepted and' adopted for themselves the name and character of Centralists, which their ultraProvincial opponents fixed upon them. I have not the least doubt that Provincial Governments may remain for years to come very useful institutions providing they will not place themselves now in the way of such places as the Wairarapa being permitted to manage its own affairs without let or hinderance from Wellington merchants or Wanganui settlers. But the ultra-provincial barnacles of oifice may depend on it that if they are so short-sighted as to stop the present floodtide of decentralizing progress until it will overflow its banks, it will then suddenly sweep them into oblivion by relieving them altogether from the duty of administering the affairs now entrusted to their care.

Tuesday, August 6, 1867. The interest taken by the public in the debate on the Local Government Bill to-night was such that every scat in the Ladies’ Gallery was occupied by youth and beauty, the Legislative Councillors’ Gallery was densely packed by ladies, and gentlemen, the stranger’s gallery was as closely packed as a barrel of salt herrings, and the gods in the reporters gallery mustered in stronger force than they generally do on ordinary occasions. The debate was commenced [by Mr.

Haughton, in a very fordable plain speaking style calling things by their right names. He said that the measure was a provincial one and must have been flamed by a select committee of Superintendents. It did not go far enough to suit bis views. It was no use trying to conciliate the ul ra-provincialists. . The General Government must either swallow up the Provinces or the Provinces would swallow up the General Government, he would support the Bill as a step in the right direction. Mr. O’Neil opposed the measure but if he finds that it is approved of ly Ins constituents he will next session vote against his own convictions in favor of the measure.

Mr Brandon moved as an amendment that the Bill be read that day six months. He opposed the measure because it would make outlying districts independent of the Superintendents and the Provincial Councils—because instead of the Superintendents proclaiming road districts they would be proclaimed by the Governor, and instead of grants in aid being paid to them through the Provincial Council they would be paid from the Colonial Treasury. Mr j oilie said that the Bill introduced a new principle into the finances of the colony, that principle of paying money out of the ordinary revenue to Eoad Boards without the intervention of the provinces. By this means some provinces might get more and others get less than the amount they would be justly entitled to. The hon. member Mr Jollie who is a very indistinct speaker spoke on both sides of the question, and your correspondent is not sure what side of the question lie was most in favor of.

Mr Travers made a very severe attack on the Provincial System, entering fully into the origin and early history of the system, hut as the Bill did not in his opinion resume to the General Government functions usurped by the Provincial Government, which it ought never to have parted with, as the Government had not made the Bill a ministerial measure he would vote against it. Mr Cox felt great sympathy for the hon. member for the goldfields, as thejntroduction of this Bill by the Government takes away from him all chance of keeping apart}' together upon the plea of opposing the centralizing tendency of the Government, lie really pitied the hon. gentleman Mr Vogel for the position he is now placed in, his last chance being now gone. Mr Cox supported the Bill. Mr Bunny—well, what did Mr Bunny do ? He spoke in a very clear and distinct manner. He said he would vote for the second reading but he hoped that it would not go any further than the second reading. It was too long a Bill, and too complicated for country people to understand. Legislation on this question should be deferred until after a general election when they might be able to ascertain the opinions of the country on the question, and frame a shorter and simpler measure than the one before the house. Mr Bunny, also in a very able manner explained to the house the injustice that had been done by the Provincial Government to the district that he represents. Mr Bunny was the only member in the house that opposed the measu.e because country people would not be able to find any gentlemen among them sufficient intelligent to understand it. Of course Mr Bunny is a very old settler in the Wairarapa and he knows better than any one else as to tlie possibility of finding any Wardens in his locality of sufficient intelligence to understand how to work the Act if it came in force in that locality.

MrFitzherbert, in a very able and conciliatory speech supported the Bill, he said that road districts, with tew exceptions had worked well under the Provincial Governments, Those exceptions were that when money was scarce, or when it was wanted elsewhere, then the weakest party went to the wall, this Bill was designed to protect the weak districts in their just rights, he knew that the great landed lords in the house would oppose it. They (the Government) had already counted the votes and knew, the exact value of each vote on this subject, but if large land owners expected to save themselves from local taxation by their present opposition to the Bill they would find themselves mistaken. Perhaps it might be true that it was too complicated for country people to understand, but he was sure that if there was any vitality in the Bill the people themselves would take up the question and see it brought into operation. Mr Hall strongly urged upon the house to allow the Bill to he read a second time ; if that was not done it would amount to a refusal on the part of the house to take the question in to consideration at all. Let the house not push the question aside with such a rude shake as that.

Mr. Vogel moved the adjournment ofthe debate until the following day. Although the question was not made one upon which the Government staked their positions as ministers and notwithstanding the announcement made by Mr Fitzhcrbert that the Government were prepared to accept of amendments upon the financial as well as other parts of the Bill, the influence of ultra-provincialism was so strong in the house as to prevent the Bill being discussed upon its merits by any party of the house during the debate, as far as it ha? ant gone. The Government evidently fully expect to be defeated.