Home Rule and Divorce.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6770, 6 September 1893, Page 4

Home Rule and Divorce.

Occasional gleams of fun relieved the monotonous dulness of the debate on amendments on the Home Rule Bill. F«r instance, on June 13»h, Sir F. Powell brought forward an amendment disabling the Irish Parliament from making laws with respect to marriage and divorce. Mr Gladstone said it must be apparent to every mernbar of the House who turned his mind to the question that the colonies to which the hon. member had referred proved conclusively that H no case had the same marriage been forced upon a largo body of persons. Sir F. Powell|:"Yes, in Canada. Mr Gladstone said Canada was not a very large body of persons, but it did good service in illustrating what the hon. member had failed to notice, namely the extraordinary diversity which prevailed amongst these communities, and the various kinds of marriage law they wished to have. The hon. member had also referred to the colonies generally in support of his argument in favor ef the unification of the law, but those colonies had only a power of local legislation, and could not go beyond their own borders. What the Imperial Parliament did by the Act of 1885 was merely to giye currency to the different marriage laws in all those colonies. The hon. member had named the Pope, Lord Salisbury, and he named also him (Mr Gladstone)— that was a goodly array of persons — (laughter and cheers) — but he did not know why they were named. The hon. member did not give any judgment he had formed himself upon the question, and nothing upon which they could form a judgment themselves. In the four groups of the Anglo-Saxon race — England, Scotland, the colonies, and the United States— they found the greatest diversities in the marriage customs. In Sauth Carolina there was no divorce, but in Connecticut the enormous inconvenience and scandalous conditions of the laws rendered it almost impossible for a man to know whether he was married or divorced. (Loud laughter.) The situation was such that ten minutes' movement of a railway train might carry him from the condition of a married man to a single one. (Renewed laughter.) When they saw the diversity of the laws they would notice how dangerous it was to employ compulsion in these matters. There was nothing to be said in favor of the amendment, and therefore he hoped the committee would decline to accept it. The amendment was rejected by 270 to 236.