The Oamaru Mail. TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1880.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 10 August 1880, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail. TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1880.

Ox Thursil;iv ilight last, in Committee on li The Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Bill," a few obstructionists made the House exceedingly lively. The vote on the question of whether or not the House should go into Committee on the Bill resulted in 56 for the motion and 14 against. Major Harris, Rev. Dr. "Wallis, Messrs. Turnbull, Seddon, and Speight., however, resolved that it should not pass through Committee smoothly. The first-mentioned gentleman gravely moved that the word <• grandmother" should be inserted instead of " sister." He said that he did not see why a deceased wife's grandmother should be shut out in the cold. Dr. "Wallis moved that the word " niece" after sister should be inserted, whereupon iVIr. Moorhouse, who was in charge of the Bill, petulantly protested that he would not accept any more amendments. But the member for Tim aril and Major Harris were not to be disposed of in any such manner, and rose alternately and proposed absurd amendments merely for the sake of obstructing the passage of the Bill. This culminated in a motion to report progress with the object of shelving it. This was rejected by an overwhelming majority. In Committee the Bill was subjected to rough handling, and not without some show of reason for it, as it came down from the Council, where it passed first, to the House of Representatives in such a foj'm as to create a, feeling of repugnance towards it. Jt provides that every marriage with a, deceased wife's sister, solemnised before a minister of religion, or registrar, shallbe deemed to be valid, and the issue born or hereafter to be born of such marriage shall be deemed to have been and to be legitimate, " provided that this Act shall not render valid any such marriage in any case where either of the j>arties of such marriage shall thereafter, before the passing of this Act, have lawfully intermarried with any other person, nor shall the passing of this Act deprive, or be held to have deprived, any person of any property which such person may have lawfully inherited prior to the coming into operation of this Act av affect any lis pendens." This, it was v«ry properly argued by Sir. Jones and others, vould disinherit the children of a man who may have married his deceased wife's sister in another polony and then deserted her for another—or re-married in consequence of her death—whilst it would legitimatize the children °f a deceased wife's sister in case that the father did not marry a third time. Hon. members made most amusing speeches on the question, and some of them got delightfully mixed. The half-past 10 adjournment was taken advantage of to infuse good humor and pliability into hon. members. But when the Committee re-ass.embled they were as playful as kittens. Four legal members displayed tlieir acumen by, as usual, differing from each other as to the meaning of the single clause of which the Bill is composed. The singular depth of their arguments quite confounded the Committee, and the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill seemed driven to his wits end by the confusion of arguments. To make mattere worse, facetious members asked all sorts of curious questions. This is one of them :

If such marriage with a deceased wife's sister shall be deemed to be and has been under contract so far as the general effect of retrospective action is concerned, then under the circumstances of the issue of marriages so contracted having contracted all alliances .under the bar of legitimacy applying in like manner, shojild the issue of the deceased -wife of the husband of such sister be considered barred ex post facto, notwithstanding the proviso for cojiyng into operation aSeeting any lis jiendeni ? After an amendment had been proposed by the lion, member for Nelson — Mr. Pitt—and lie had explained it, ably, certainly, but in a manner that nobody .could understand, an hon. gentleman penned the following in reply:— But if A has inherited on the score of legitimacy, and B, being the issue such former marriage of the deceased wife s sister, having subsequently inherited, A cannot, the Act being retrospective, succeed to the property formerly held by the later marriage, and thus B, through demurrage of A, would not mutatis mutandis have such legal remedy as if the case had been reversed. Of course, the Committee was convulsed with laughter, when Mr. Turnbull rose and said, " I do trust that the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill will give a satisfactory reply to this question [the one which we have given first]. It certainly puts the matter in a plain matter-of-fact aspect, and one which should lead to an immediate solution of the difficulty." The debate concluded by Mr. J. C. Brown accusing the Government of having occupied time in order to prevent other business from being brought- on. He was induced to think so from the fact that the Colonial Secretary had occupied so inuch time of the Committee immediately prior to the hour of adjournment. A. "eneral melee was the sequel. The Colonial Secretary accused Mr. Seddon of usurping the authority of the leader of the Opposition —Mr. Macandrew. Mr. Seddon, of course, had to explain, and, as the whole Opposition had also been mentioned somewhat slightingly by the Colonial Secretary, a swarm of the hon. gentlemen alluded to rose and defended themselves. Mr. Seddon again rose and made a long harangue. We said that stonewalling had emanated from the Government side of the House Ln. order to prevent his " Payment of Members Bill." He was interrupted by the Colonial Treasurer, who said that he did hope that hon. members would have a little consideration for the country, which was bleeding at every pore, and not act like children. Mr. Seddon then rose and said that there was no man in j the House that he had more respect for, and whose advice he would sooner accept, than the hon. the Colonial | Treasurer. He then resumed his long haranrjuo, in which he charged members with being lobbied. -Mr. Moorhouse, who was in cliarge of the Bill, lectured the hon. members for the West Coast, and pointed out to him that if all hon. members spoke as volubly as he did, Hansard for the session would weigh tons. The Minister for Lands then expressed a that lion, •rc'itlemen would be , i.uf I- u.r House through t!i> S-'iluon proceeded to relieve hnnseit ox' the redundant flatulence of his verbosity,

and ultimately concluded by -moving that progress be reported. A lengthy guerilla warfare ensued, the member in charge of the Bill alluding in felicitous terms to the action of the gentlemen who had opposed the measure. Hon. members on both sides had prepared themselves for systematic stonewalling, their idea being to stand their ground. The impression of the principal objectors was that - the • Bill was designed to benefit two or three persons, and that, whilst benefiting them, it would affect most unfairly the interests of others.