Washington sentinel., 1898-07-30
DUR FOREIGN NEWS
Translated and Selected TyOn Leading
hHTopeaabaosrSJ0v tie SENTINEL.
ENGLAND.
COLONIAL MARRIAGES DRCRAsFp
WIFE's SISTER, BILL IN THE LORDS.
ENGLAND.


Standardization, July 9.
The Second Reading OF the Colonia
Marriages Deceased Wife's Sister, Bill
was carried in the House Of Lords las
night by the Unexpectedly large major
ity OF eighty three-one hundred anc
twenty-nine against forty.six. =
In number of the colonies and in
Jersey, statutes have been passed which
legalize marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, and the children OF such mar
riages are, Of course, legitimate where
ever such acts are in force. But on
arriving in England their status is not
fully recognized, as they cannot succeed
to real property by descent, or, as il is
thought, to family honors. They are,
however, entitled to take the personal
property OF their parents in this country,
and the ostenslble design of the bill is
to do away with an unfair distinction.
The principal objection raised to the
measure by the Lord Chancellor was
that ii would revolutionize the laws of
succession in this country without any
sufficient reason. In fact, it was not so
much a Marriage Bill as one for the
alteration Of the Law Of Inheritance. 1t
contains, however, a prov isiou that
such an act shall only apply to children
OF parents domiciled in colony, so that
1t would not be possible for a brother
and sister-tn-law simply to go out to a
colony and get married, and then come
home again with their children, in
practical evasion OF the English law.
This danger is guarded against in Lord
Srathcona's measure. But the other
objection remains, nor did Lord lanes
Of Hereford or Lord Kim berley succeed
in disposing of it.
Dafly Ne5OS.-London, July Q,
If any one were to call the Lord
Chancellor Little Englander, we do
not see what answer he would have to
the charge. The objections to this bill
are saturated with spirit OF the pettiest
paroChlalism. Lord Ha.sbury and his
supporters, the rag-tag and bobtail Of
the House OF Lords, dare not needle
directly with colonial legislation, They
know very we'll that the first time they
did II would also be the last. But they
are not above wOunding where they are
afraid to strike, and inflicting annoyance
because they can do nothing else.
Even the Lord Chancellor has his uses.
He is a conspicuous refiltation OF the
fallacy that Tories are the true Imper-
iallsts Here is bill designed exclu-
sively for the benefit OF our colonial
fellow subjects, and yet, as Lord Kim
berleY SAID, so framed as to imperil no
domestic interest whatsoever. People
cannot be prevented from making wills
and so ensuring that their children
shall not suffer for the circumstances in
which they were born. The grievance
is largely a sentimental one. The doubt
thrown upon the validity of these mar
riages IS an insult to the colonies, which
they naturally feel and iustihabIy resent.
Yet when an honest attempt is made by
a distinguished colOnist to get rid of a
mischievous and irritating anomaly,
the Tory Chancellor the first to lay
subject OF the Queen, does all he can to
Illustrate it.
Morning P0SI-London, July 9.
1t seems a pity that the bill could not
have been framed so as to make no
mention of the Deceased Wife's Sister,
for the question Of the propriety of that
kind OF marriage has nothing to do with
the matter at issue. The point raised
is simply this; Shall law which 10 valid
in the colonies and dependencies, and
which has received the assent of the
Queen, and by implication ofth Home
Government, continue to be accounted
Invalid in Great Britain? Lord Strath.
coma moved the second reading in a
speech that was in excellent temper and
taste; it could ALLEVIATE no likely sup
porters Of the measure and might win
some. To the lay mind the present
situation is the most absurd and anon.
alous conceivable. From the
legal point OF view the situation is still
more absurd and more complicated.
Its absurdity was we'll illustrated by
Lord James OF Hereford Such marri.
ages are accounted so partially valid
that children born of them may even
inherit leasehold prope rty, but not
realty; so that, said Lord James, "a
man who bad contracted one OF these
marriages, and who bought a leasehold
house in England, with a lease, It might
be, Of nine hundred and nine ty-nine
years, and afterwards built a stable on a
piece Of freehold land would be a mar
ried man in his house and a widower in
his stable, and his children are legiti
mate in one place and illegitimate in the
other"
DafIy Graphic London, July9.
1t IS an unfortunate thing that the
whole bench Of Bishops should on an
important question have placed them
selves in direct hostility TO the unanim
Gus opinion OF the whole Of our coIonia
empire. A man who is legal,
married in Canada comes to live il
England. The law recognizes his mar
riage; his children are legitimate. Blu
the moment he dies, should he leav,
real property behind him, the law turn
round to his son and says in effect
This land Of your fathers Goes no
belong to YOU, because after all you ar,
only halflegItimate. You can take you
fathers personally, but his realty mus
60 elsewhere" That is a wrong {,
every British colony, and a wrong whicl
can be redressed without affecting