THE MARRIAGE LAW

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 216, 12 October 1929, Page 5

THE MARRIAGE LAW

from Our Special Parliamentary Reporter.

AIR H. G. R. IvIASON'S BILL PASSED. SIR FRANC1S BliLL'S OBJEGTIONS.

AVELLINGTON, This day. The unusual honour of a private member of Farliament gettmg a bill of his own through the Legislature to-day fell to the lot of Mr H. G. R. Alason, Ihe member for Auckland Suburbs, whose AIarriag;e Aniendment Bill, validating marriage with a deceased wife's niece, or a deceased husband's nepliew, was jiassed by ihe IiCgislative Council with miror amendments, of which the House has vet to approve. _ Sir Francis Bell entered an emphatic protest against tlio passage of the measure 011 the gvound that it would have the effect of ereating pevsons illegitimate 111 other parts of the E111pire under the New Zealand law. He maintained that the marriage laws should be identieal throughout the Empire, and th© bill mad© a new departure. "Is there any earthly reason," _ he asked, "for a man to marry liis wife's niece 01* for a woman to marry her deceased nephew " he asked, amidst laugliter. "I mean her deceased husband's nephew," he said, correcting himself. "Soon we will have a hill introduced to enahle a man to marry his grau'dmother's wife" (loud langhter). This time Sir Francis did not seem to realise his mistake. The Hon. T. S. AVeston seconded the protest. It was scarcelv decent, he said, for an old man to marry a young girl, and he could not see whv a man should ever require to fall back on his deceased wife's niece. The Hon. J. Barr said that if we found a wrong in our law it was no argument to say that it should not be altered until it was altered in ihe Old Country. AToving an aiuendment tliat the third reading he taken three months hence, the Hon. AV. Earnshaw expressed the belief that it was undesirable that such marviages should take place. There should be f-ome general movement throughout the Empire before such a big change was made. Tlie Hon. L. M. Isitt said that he could see no objection to legalising the marriages proposed. AVhy should thev prevent such marriages and permit cousins to marry ? Replving to Air Barr, Sir Francis Bell said that we had a right to legalise indejrendentlv, but it was a rerognised principle throughout the Empire that at least there should be uniformity 111 regard to legitimacy. Tlie amendment was lost by 13 to 22 and the bill was tlien passed with amendments made by the Statutes Revison Committee.