LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8189, 2 August 1912, Page 5

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

THURSDAY, AUGUST 1.

Tho Council mot at 2.30 p.m. A question put on the order-paper fay tlu. Uou. air G. M. O’Rorke asked tho Jlini-ler oi lit!omul Adairs whether it ims tho inlciil ion of tho Government to proi-ced with the Hill submitted in February last for enlarging the powers of road hoard.-- and county councils; or whether they would introduce a Bill to rev-toro to tho old provinces of New Zealand tho powers conferred on them fay the Imperial Act of 1832. Tho lion. H. D. Bell, in reply, said it was not tho intention of the Government to proceed with the Hill to amend tho system of local government pro-l-osetl fay tho last Administration. He was uuafalo to .-ay whether there was any pro-pect of tho Government advising reversion to tho former sj-stem. HULL OF MEMBERSHIP. On tho motion of tho Hon. J. L- Jon-klu.-on. it was decided that there bo laid upon tho table oi the Council a return showing—Ol Fire names of members ot tho Legislative Council from loa-t to 1912, together with the oHicial Farliainentnry positions held fay them; fa-) tne dates of tho appointments ol siieh members and tho Oates on which their *j ca ® became vacant; and (3; tho period periods during which any such memo r sat in the House of Representatives and the electorates which lie ropresonter - NO GOVKRNMF.XT BUSINESS. Tho Iton. H. D. Hell said thatfora period beyond tho meinory o any but one or two members ol t m Co.n» *uch a position as now existed bad ' from currcd There had been no speech from the Throne advised by tho Government which had tho duty of introducing Government measures to both Houses of Parliament. it was, therefore, impossible for himself or his colleagues to propose any Government measures boloro tho Government© statement of poim- was brought down-next Tuesday, it was hoped. Thus ho had no business on behalf of the Government to offer for the consideration of tho Council, and unless any member had private busmens to bring forward it would probably meet tho general convenience if he moy. ©d that, upon rising, tho Council snoula adjourn until Wednesday afternoon next. (Hear, hear.) , A motion to this effect was earned unanimously, thf marriage law AT TNDIXG BILL THROWN OUT. T ■ Hon. Sir William Steward moved tho second reading of tho Marriage Act Amendment Bill, which he described as on attempt to remove a very unjustifiable embargo and to relieve a number of peoplo from a position they tolt to be intolerable. Its purpose was to make lawful a marriage with a deceased wile s aioco or a deceased husband’s nephew. He rehearsed his previous attempts to -ecuro the passage of tho Bill in the lower House and appealed to the Council for its most careful consideration. The Bill was supported by the Hon. C. H. Mills, who said ho could think of uo season why it should not bo PS The’"Hon. H. D. Bell said that ho had always been personally opposed to constant and minor alterations to the law which was rightly regarded as the moat sacred of all laws. Ho regretted that on tho first occasion on which he had spoken in the Council on a Bill ho should find himself in such direct opposition to a member with whom he had sat in tho other House. There was to him all tho difference in the world between permitting marriage with a deceased wife’s sister and marriage with a deceased wife’s sister’s child. ' In many cases the relationship between a ™ a3 J nnd his deceased wife’s niece would at first be practically that of parent and child, and it seemed quite wrong to allow it to be changed to that of husband and wife. _ _ . The Hon. W. C. P. Carncross supported the Bill, and said that its purpose was in his view entirely right. The Hon. J. B. Gallon said he could not support the Bill, which, he considered, would create discord and dissension in families if passed into law. A man should not be encouraged to marry the first cousin of his own daughters. Such a marriage was repulsive and unnatural. ' «ir William Steward said that there *o force in such. an argument, th ill would prevent marriage of p<ttp(o between whom any ties of blood ■existed. . .. The motion for second reading was lost by 16 votes to 12, tho division list the Bill: The Hons. Eigg. Paul, Barr, Jones, Carncross, Baldey, Ormond. Adstey, Louisson, Mills, Duncan, and Sir W. J. Steward. „ „ „ , Against the Bill: The Hons. Bell, Culjan Luke Baillie, George, Jenkinson. Bee’han. Smith, Collins, Loughnan, McCardle, Kelly, Harris, Thompson, Wigram, and Samuel. EDUCATION. The Hon. J. E Jenkinson gave notice of intention to movo that a committee he set up -from the Council to deal with the matter of education, to sit and confer with any similar committee from the other House. Tho Council rose at 4 p.m.