COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 149, 23 June 1906, Page 7

COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.

I ■ ■ j CLERICAL OPPOSITION IN TELE LORDS. ] (From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, May 18. On Monday last the second reading of the Colonial Marriages Bill was agreed to in the House of Lords without a divij sion. The advancement of this measure iis an affair of considerable Imperial, as I well as legal, significance. At the prei sent time the law of all the self-govern- ! ing colonies save one, and of not a few ! Crown colonies, recognises the validity '< of marriages with a deceased wife's sis- ; ter. The consequence of this state of :thingß is that a British subject may be legally married according to the law ot the colony where he is domiciled; yet at ; the same time, for the purposes of intestate" succession to his real property situlate in England, his children may be re--1 garded as illegitimate, and his wife as I possessing no marital rights: both may, i therefore, be debarred from inheriting I part at least of the deceased's estates, j I The effect of the present bill is to remove j ! this disability by recognising the legality lof colonial marriages which in this rejspect have at present no validity in the eyes of the law of England. I Lord Elgin, who moved the second j reading, said tho bill urged that nothing j but loss would result from an obstacle < (being allowed to exist in iho way of ] colonists who desired to return to and I live in this country, anfi nothing could bo more contrary to the feeling of real kinship a:id of Imperial unity. The bill also related to the restriction in the matter or honours which now existed. They had been glad to welcome in the 'House of Lords members from the coloin'ies, and it had been suggested that in 1 the extension of that membership a solution might be found of many Imperial problems of administration and eon:.cc- ! tion. Uo-svevcr that might be, he did | 'not understand how they could offer j their colonial brethren less than they i themselves possessed. They had to look j ' not only to new creations, but to the possibility that sons of members of the jfouse of Lords, if descendants of marriages such as the bill dealt with, might |be barred from succession to that House. He hoped the bill would be accepted by | the colonies as a proof that the Government and that House were animated in i this matter by a spirit of justice and I sympathy. i Viscount Halifax was the first to i raise his \ oice in opposition. He nrguod ! I that the bill would introduce a fundamental change into the English law Ol I inheritance as to rral property, because jit would make the right ot :tu cession to real property depend on the law of the 'colony in which the claimant wjs born, j instead of on the law of England, where I the property wus'/iUaUd; and although 'it did not'directly aifcr-t the marriage | law of Rngland, it would enable any inhabitant of the British Empire to violate ; Itho law with absolute impunity. The bill j 'would ennble a marriage to be contracted \ lin the colonies by persons who had gone ! [there for the purpose, which the English ! law would not be able to touch or quesjtion. although that marriage under the i existing lav,- of this country would be I absolutely illegal. ! The Archbishop of Canterbury's prin- I ioipal objection to the bill was that "by ! pulling, out. o,tc. brick from the wall the; •'whole structure of the marriage laws | ' might be reduced -,o confusion." The | | Marquis of Salisbury described the j i measure as a "(Sank movement to carry 'the Deceased Wife's SLtcr Bill in ling- | land." j Lord James, of Hereford, supported 'the measure strongly. The charge of ob j turning recognition by this bill of marI riage with a deceased wife's sister was answered hy the fact that the promoters of this measure, though nomL-ialiy the Government, were the colonists themselves, who over and over again had ! oressed for the alterations it proposed. | Our action hitherto in this matter had 'been an insult to the colonies. It did •seem rather a strong thing, when they ' 'had sanctioned the Acts of colonial Par- • j liaments legalising unions wliicb they ' regarded as perfectly legitimate, to af--1 front, for no public object, the sense and • self-respect of our colonial brethren by '■ refusing to place them on the same foot- ; ing as they were placed by their own ' fellow-countrymen. The effect of these laws working on our own laws had pro- ' duced an absurd condition <>f things. I [Our cables have since announced that 1 the bill passed its final reading. —Ed.]