Page:Marriage with a deceased wife s sister.pdf/26

This page has been validated.

21

The President: That is not quite so as to personal property.

Mr. Ayde Douglas: Just so, Sir; but it only shows the absurdity of the law as it now stands. The child of one of these marriages can take the personalty,^[1]but he cannot take the realty. There is no doubt that this feeling obtains in the Colonies, particularly at a time when everything is being done to unite the Colonies to the Mother Country. There is nothing that would unite the Colonies to the Mother Country more than the feeling that marriages which were valid out there should be recognised as valid in England, and that the results of those marriages should be recognised in England as they are recognised in the Colonies. Now persons marrying in the Colonies are many of them not aware what would be the result of the law in England, because they are not supposed to be acquainted with all the laws of inheritance, and so forth. They marry, and they come home here; they desire to purchase property and settle down here; and then after a time they are informed that their children cannot inherit English property. Why not? How does it interfere fundamentally with the principles of English law? It does not interfere with the principles of English law, because we know that the law of inheritance is continually altered here, and it will inconvenience nobody in England if it simply enacted that a marriage which is valid and recognised by the law of England should be recognised in the some way as regards property, both realty and personalty;^[2]

↑ But, after all, this is an inference only, not founded upon any decision, but arising out of mere obiter dicta in the case of Brook v Brook. See p.23.
↑ The present Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) himself has conceded the very principle contended for. The Bill which he introduced during the Session of 1877 proposed compulsory registration, the abolition of primogeniture and entail, and the application of the same rules to realty as to personalty. If any change could be described as fundamental those surely were of that class.

[1] But, after all, this is an inference only, not founded upon any decision, but arising out of mere obiter dicta in the case of Brook v Brook. See p.23.

[2] The present Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) himself has conceded the very principle contended for. The Bill which he introduced during the Session of 1877 proposed compulsory registration, the abolition of primogeniture and entail, and the application of the same rules to realty as to personalty. If any change could be described as fundamental those surely were of that class.

[1]

[2]