Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6246, 19 June 1890, Page 3

Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill.

Tho supporters of the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill scored a victory on March 30lh, when they carried the second reading of Mr. Gardner’s measure legalising said marriages by 222 to 155—a clear majority of 67. 'The debate was an animated one, though conducted in a thin house. Colonial precedents wore freely relied on, and unquestionably carried much weight. Mr Gardner contended that since the Imperial Government had sanctioned marriage with a deceased wife’s sister in the colonies, it was too late for Great Britain alone of the countries of the world to seek to maintain an obsolete and antiquated restriction at the end of tbe 19th century. Mr Qainsford Bruce, in moving that the Bill be read a second lime that day six months, mentioned that papers had been circulated referring to the .. operation of the Act in Victoria which had shocked hon. members. What these revelations amounted to did not transpire. Mr Jeffreys, another opponent of the Bill, seemed disposed to excuse the colonies for their lapse from the straight and narrow road, by remarking that they were very sparsely populated, while in this country the females were redundant in proportion to the men. He also declared that in the colonies there was not the same intimacy between relatives as io Ibis country. Mr T. Fry mads a decided hit by relating a case in which a man, who had lawfully married hie deceased wife’s sister in Australia, afterwards came to England, where he repudiated hio colonial wife, and married another woman, with the result that the second was the legal wife in this country, and the first one the legal spouse in Australia. Sir James Ferguaeon took a prominent part in opposing the bill, and he drew upon his colonial experience in support of his arguments. He said he knew something about the law in the colonies, as he happened to be Governor of tbe colony of South Aus tralia when that colony, the first of all the colonies, passed the law legalizing marriage with|a deceased wife’s sister, and he was in a position to say that the agitation on the subject was altogether artificial and fictitious, 'ihe measure was passed in opposition to the whole religious conviction of the colony, and there was not at this moment one clergyman of the Church of England in that colony who would celebrate these marriage. He did not think that that showed that the public opinion of the colony was in favour of the law. These arguments, however, made but little impression, and the bill was read a second time. Its fate in the House of Lords is uncertain. That House seven years ago passed the second reading by a small majority, but rejected the measure on the third reading. Since then it has been twice rejected by majorities of 22 and 27 so that its prospects are not very good.— (Auckland Herald's correspondent.)