PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1202, 10 August 1911, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

TEE. COUNCIL. DIVORCE BILL REJECTED. ADDRESS-IN-REPLY CONCLUDED. Tho Legislative Council met at 2.30 yesterday afternoon. CHAIRMAN. OF COMMITTEES. The election of Chairman of Committees for which position tho candidates were tho Hon. W. C, F. Carncross and tho Hon.. J. Rigg resulted in tho return of tho Hon. Mr. Carncross. The Hon. Mr. Kigg and several other ipeakors congratulated Mr; Carncross on iis return to the position. FIELD DIVORCE BILL. The Hon. Geo. JONES moved the second reading of the Field Divorce Empowering Bill: The purpose of the Bill, he said, was to enable Mr. A. H. Field, of Ashburton, coal merchant, notwithstanding tho provisions of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, to petition the Supreme Court to dissolve his marriage with his wife, who had been insane for the past 18 years. As the Act stood a person had. to be in a registered asylum for 10 years' before a divorce could be granted. The person in question had been insane for 16 years, but had only been in a registered asylum for six years, the balance of tho time having been put in in a private home. The Hon, W. BEEHAN (Auckland) said he did not like tho Bill and he -did not like the way it had been gone about. This man, it appeared, wanted to get a dissolution of his marriage by a sidedoor. ' He hoped the Council would not open that side-door to Mr. Field or to anyone else.

The Hon. C. H. MILLS (Wellington) did not think it would be wise or just to penalise this man for the further four years' term, after his wife had already been in a private home. The Hon. W. W. M'CABDLE (Auckland) objected to the Bill. The Hon. J. T. PAUL (Otago) thought the prayer of the Bill should be given effect to. .

The Hon. Geo. JONES, in reply, said what was proposed was quite legitimate, and should be granted. On a division the motion for the second reading was defeated, the voting beingAyes, 9, Noes 15.

ADDRESS-IM-REPLY. The Hon. J. M'GOWAN (Auckland), speaking to the Address-in-Eeply, said to his mind the land question was the main question for any country. The efforts .of tho Government to get land for closer settlement increased the value of the land, and the result was that, men wero put on tho land at a higher price than should be.- His idea was that every farmer, etc., ■who employed an able-bodied man should be compelled to set aside a portion of the land worked for. that man—say, not less ■than three acres—which should bo part of the wages of the man. Referring to the. references to titles, he.didnot think there was any wisdom in deriding titles. The Hon. J. E. SINCLAIR, in reply, again referred to the necessity of national unity and for standing as one united 1 whole. • This concluded the debate. The Council adjourned 'until Friday Week. .