THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1908. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9171, 20 August 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1908. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL.

The prominent part which Sir W. J. Steward has taken for a number of years past in connection with the introducing of legislation in order to validate marriages, which, owing to the relationships of the parties, were not valid, naturally ensures for him a good deal of attention when he comes forward with any proposed similar measure. Sir William,, however, has been unfortunate this session with his Marriage Amendment Bill, chiefly, it would appear, because if the Bill became law in its present form it would be possible for a man to marry his deceased -wife's grandmother. The possibility of conferring upon the men of this country such an inestimable privilege was wisely shunned by the House, and the Bill was not allowed to pass on the second reading. Sir W. J. Steward declares that it is quite inqorrect to assert that any Buch right is embodied in

the Bill, but Sir J. G. Ward contends | that the right is there all the same. s In 1895 the Legislature passed an | Act to legalise all marriages con- ; tracted up to that date between a : man and his deceased wife's niece and a woman and her deceased husband's nephew. It was proposed by the Bill then introduced that not only should the marriages up to that date lie validated, but, also, that similar marriages in the future should be validated. When the Bill was in Committee, however, it vas altered to apply only to marriages up to that date. Last year Sir William introduced a Bill to make the section in question apply to the present and future ns well as to the past, hut it did not find favour in the eyes of the House. This year, as already mentioned, he has made another attempt to persuade the House to carry the enactment of 1895 to its logical conclusion. It is certainly absurd for Parliament to legalise such marriages up to 1895, and to refuse to render legal marriages of a similar character contracted since that date, and to make no provision for like alliances in the future. Truly, our Parliament does its work in very piecemeal fashion, and spasmodically as well. However, to refer to the Bill in question, the Premipr criticising it adversely, spoke as follows:—"This Bill seeks to legalise marriages between a man and his deceased wife's niece, or a woman and her deceased hueband's nephew, and I want to point out to the honourable gentleman what this means. The amendment he made a year or two ago was to put into a posi- j tion existing marriages between a man and his deceased wife's niece, or., between a woman and her deceased husband'? nephew. He now proposes to make this general, and to give it future application to all who elect to avail themselves of it. That means he proposes to remove all the disabilities that exist where thf>re is not blood-relationship. If that position is|right, it means that a marriage can take place between a man and his deceased wife's grandmother." Sir William retorts that the Premier "jokes excellently," and denies flatly the correctness of the allegation. Furthermore, he asserts ! that the Bill has been through the ! Attorney-General's hands, and has ' been, practically, redrafted by the Law Officers of the Crown. It seems, however, that the Premier once knew of a young man who married some- '• body else's grandmother and the I event, quite naturally, turned > out j very unhappily. The Premier is, therefore, determined to protect young men from the dire possibilities arising from marrying a deceased wife's grandmother. The Bill has been rejected, and there is no chance of its making another appearance this session. That is how the master stands at present.