Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4156, 16 July 1874, Page 2

Marriage with a deceased wife’s sister was again the subject of some discussion in the Legislative Council yesterday, on the motion for the second reading of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill. Members seemed to show considerable apprehensions as to the possible effects on the morality of the people of New Zealand of the passage of the Bill. The hon. gentleman who represents the Government in the Chamber, and is himself a member of the Ministry, was somewhat indulgent to his curiosity, putting a question plainly across the table as to whether there was any particular scandal which the passage of the Bill Was intended to cover? To this supposition the answer was ah indignant “No.” The hon. gentleman, however, insisted that in South Australia, where it was lawful for a man to marry his late wife’s sister, it was, possible for him to marry his niece instead ; an interpretation of the law which drew from ' the hon. the proposer of the measure the explanation that it was not his own but his late wife’s niece which the law of that Colony permitted a widower to take to wife. To all the objections taken to the measure the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. Waterhouse) replied that hon. members did not remember the purport of the Bill, which was not to legalise marriage with the sister of a deceased . wife, but to recognise, as legal, marriages contracted legally in Great Britain or any of the British Colonies. “ They would,” he said, “ see nothing in the Bill but marriage with a deceased wife’s sister”—to which some hon. gentlemen replied asseutingly with a marked “hear, hear.” To the argument of Mr. Waterhouse, it was replied by Dr. Pollen, that to recognise marriages as legal, consummated in other Colonies where the law was different from that of New Zealand, would be to encourage breaches of the law, by inducing persons situated in the relationship contemplated by the Act to go to one or other of the Australian Colonies, and there enter into marriage which might be found illegal from imperfect domicile. The arguments of the opponents of the Bill were ingenious, if not not very sound. Two amendments were proposed—one, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; and the other, that the date be fourteen days. On a division, the numbers were equal—ten on each side; and the hon. the Speaker gave his canting-vote, so that the Bill will again come iip for discussion, and that at a time when a call of tho Council will have been made, so that the measure may then be considered and dealt with by a full House. In this the hon. the Speaker acted wisely.

Canterbury, if the hon. members who represent the Province in the Legislative Council are not casting undeserved discredit on her, must be “ Tho most distressful country That ever yet was seen" in New Zealand, as regards the prevalence of a particularly unpleasant species of crime—that of indecent assaults upon women and children. When the Offences against the Person Act Amendment Bill was before the Council yesterday, an hon. member from Otago moved the substitution of the word “shall” for “may,” to make it compulsory upon Judges, when passing sentence upon offenders of that description, to order flogging as well as imprisonment. He ■was supported by an hon. member from Auckland, who stated that if he had not been too late, he would also have proposed to substitute the term of twenty-one years for ten years as the maximum period of imprisonment to which a Judge might sentence a convicted offender. Both hon. members indicated, if they did not state, that the crime alluded to was of but too common occurrence in their Prov inces. Hon. members from Canterbury, however, were quite pathetic in their remarks to the Council on the subject. While they agreed with honorable members who pointed out that there were degrees of criminality even in this species of crime, and that it would be improper to take away from the Judges the power of discriminating in the cases that came before them, they admitted that in Canterbury indecent assaults were of much too frequent occurrence. It was stated that fellows were in the habit of haunting the neighborhood of isolated houses in the country for weeks and months together, taking advantage of the absence of the men, whose departure they watched, to insult the female inmates. In one case so long had this sort of persecution endured, and so powerless the authorities seemed to put a atop to it, that at last the family were driven from their home to avoid the insults to which the ladies were exposed. Other hon. members protested that in this matter New Zealand was no exception, and that here—even in the remotest parts of the country—women were as safe from insult as they were in any other country under the sun. The impression, however, was left on the minds of the few people who heard the discussion, that more protection for women was needed in the outlying portions of most of the Provinces, and most of all in rich and prosperous Canterbury.

The Ward-Chapman correspondence was again the subject of discussion in the House of Representatives yesterday. Mr. J. L. Gillies moved the appointment of the Select Committee of which he had given notice, to inquire into the whole subject : primarily, the charges made to the Premier by Judge Ward against Judge Chapman; and secondly, tho manner in which the .contents of the telegrams of Judge Ward found their way, in the form in which they did, to the Otago Daily Times. Mr. Vogel put it to the House somewhat strongly that the appointment of such a Committee should not be agreed to. The charges alleged against Judge Chapman, though signed by Judge Ward as District Judge, were not tho complaints of one Judge against another, but simply those of Mr. Ward, in his private capacity as a citizen. He could not think that the House really desired that those charges should he investigated, seeing that there was notiiing specific in them ; and the House was already in possession of all the information on tho subject that a Committee were likely to obtain, and could at once pronounce an opinion. The whole affair was a sad one, but the matter should he left in abeyance. The House should only interfere on very grave occasions, and to appoint a Committee now would be like casting a reflection on the Government, who had given the case full consideration, and had come to the conclusion that no inquiry was necessary. As to the second part of tho proposed inquiry, the only way to get at the truth would he to call the editor before the committee, and ask him how his newspaper obtained the information it published. That was a power the House might exercise on some occasions, but this) was not one of them. Mr. Luckio, in the interests of the Press, suggested that if the House went to war with the Press the pen might be found mightier than the mace. Major Atkinson asserted in reply to a remark that fell from Mr. Vogel, that if he had been a member of tho Government he would have taken a totally different course. The purity of the administration of justice was tho first consideration. It was absolutely necessary, he held, that this scandal should he inquired into ; that the Judge who had made the charges should be removed from tho bench if ho failed to prove them ; and that Judge Chapman should he relieved of his official position if they wore substantiated. Judge Ward made his accusation knowing well the value of words and of evidence, and prepared for tho consequences. He was astonished that the Government should ask tho House to allow tho matter to rest. He thought a Royal Commission should be appointed. Mr. Vogel reminded tho hon. member that nono of tho Judges would undertake such a duty as that involved in tho investigation of this matter; Ministers would not do so unless in the last extremity ; and there were no other persons in tho Colony whoso position entitled them, or

who' had the right, to do bo. Major Atkinson* in reply, said the other Colonies, or even England might be appealed to. A debate of some length ensued, in which Mr. T. B. Gillies, Mr. Steward, Mr. T. L. Shepherd, Mr. Sheehan, and Mr. Eox took part. The latter, while supporting the motion as he had pledged himself to do, held that no such case of corruption had been put forward as would entitle the House to interfere ; quoted authorities, and asked Mr. Speaker for a ruling. The Speaker ruled that it was quite competent for the House to make the inquiry ; but said his own private opinion was that the matter was not grave enough to be proceeded with, as if members supported the motion they must do so with their minds made up to the inevitable consequences. Mr. J. L. Gillies replied, and the committee was appointed without a division. This matter, therefore,’ will now be as fully investigated, in all its bearings, as a Select Committee of the House, possessed of full powers, is capable of doing.