THE COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 4437, 19 May 1877, Page 1

THE COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.

It is- jriipprtant/ .that; of th« Colonial Marriages IJill/'*which pspentlj .passed its second reading in .the TTnnwA of Commons, should be, understood.- The question at issue is noivaafwe bare Seen it stated in one on two Colonial jonmalß, an 4 us, indeed, it wm put at theouttat.ofctoe debate in Parliament, wbetherihisiwtfe of a marriage celebrated between a manaftd r toe sister of his deceased wife in a Colony, where snch marriages’ to be held legitimate or . in Imgland, which Woold indeed question -of serious , import but. one of a comparatively trifling character, namely—whether such-issuer oan i inhorfif land in England in r cases ofin testacy. the point would- seldom The vast mass of Ihft childrenborn in a Colony- deceit inherit land ifcEa£httjditlder ,® n y .circumstances,! and landedproprietors at Home for thc s mifch wills, in which event tire TsfctW « maifik|tfrbf>the kind referred to are just as competent as other issue toi 1 acceptrtfid property devised to them, so'that the; alW^Tgrif >p qy«r is reduced, to almost infinitesimal pnLportions. True, the as it goesj marfc the issae Witiiiaf distinctive brand; but the distinction is itoU: pdSuliar, since the Endish law’+efusesi tb recogilse, for example/ the legitimacy of fthildrth bom in Scotland before marriage, aqd whb.- by ther Scottish law,. can! Parents mony. Here is something approaching the natare' of a 'Tcai,* gyidraace, yet, as was -pointed ont-by Earl the disqualification rhas not led , practically, to any serious inconvenience. It must (be,, manled that it lyonld -be bettei*, .to ■, all these disqualifications, .Whether, slight or otherwise, if . it could; -in of Commons be conveniently ,the I pith of the objections raised ti/theCblonial | Marriages Bill was that, whereas fchegriev- : ance it proposed to remedy, Was trifling,' its passage might open the door-to very grave evils. The only solid argument urged in support of the measure was that the‘lmperial Government, having sanctioned the Bills of four colonies legalising the marriage of a man with his deceased wife’s lister, was bound to supplement the concession by taking the requisite steps .for giving such marriages full validity when the parties or their ?tood on was contended that tbe^flecTcl would be to alter the principles regulating the devolution of real property in England, and that while - the .Colpnies. by .virtue of their Constitutions, had a perfect* right to make laws for themselves, it 1 Was 'tftftfeatohable to demand that they, should T be permitted, to legislate, by a roundabout Wrbcess, the inhabitant cf {Upitpfl Mother-, Country v and- its Colonies must each stand on a separate footing, and respect the peculiarities of one another’s domestib legifehftitfc, at the expense sometimes of a littlt inconvenience. Then it was also argued that, if the Bill were passed, rich persons would enjoy the advantage over their poorer neighbors of being 1 K&lelo visit Australia aad contract marrikgbs there which were prohibited in the United Kingdom, or as Mr BKEESFORD Hopndmmorously pat the ppinfe they would - ‘/have placards stuck up at Lydgs te. Hilt mar- | riage 'trips 01. ‘Joe conducted I under the auspices of the Messrs Cook at 10 ! per cent, reduction, and couples having got. 4 i oat to the Colonies nnder the tpbeliury gold* ; ance of the. common serjeant and ms right ! kon. friend, migh. make the the trip back as, the best., yray of spending (the honeymoon.” This objefetidS °was I met by,, -the, offer ,to insert a danse lin toe Bill making a two or three years’residence in the Colony ' a preliminary I condition to contracting snch a .marriage. The Bil, unfortunately fqr its had been framed so as to have a retrospective effect, and its opponents, brought forward the telling argnmehtrthat/if catoiM, it might be toe means' 1 of wresting numerous pr ssessors of property frojia This weight of logic was immensely in fav°r of the opponents of the measure, but toe voting was entirelyto6' othferway, the motion for second reading being ‘camscl by 192 to 141 votes. The, result ‘was /reviewed i with, disfavor by the ‘ Times ’ and moat of the highest class of London journals, and iit was anticipated, when the r mail left, that the Bill would come to grief at a quent stage of its career. ~, ‘H 1