27
only assent to that legislation, but should also give a more general assent to the recognition of the fact that engagements legally entered into in any particular Colony should be fully recognised as such by the mother country.
The President: And by other Colonies, I presume?
Mr. Robinson: And by other Colonies.
The President: I think I am right in understanding, am I not, that in Natal the reason why the assent was refused by Sir Michael Hicks Beach was that the measure was carried by a very small majority?[1]
Mr. Robinson: It was carried by a very small majority. As a matter of fact the law has been passed again since that time. A certain amount of irritation exists with regard to its not being sanctioned.
Mr. Upington: We have not got the law in Cape Colony; it has been brought in but never carried; but I am perfectly certain that Cape Colony would be prepared to sanction such marriages if they were solemnised in a Colony where the law did prevail.
Mr. Hofmeyr: These marriages though not legal in the Cape Colony, are valid in the neighbouring Dutch Republic of the Orange Free State. But they are not acknowledged in the Republic bordering on the Free State, viz., that of the Transvaal.[2]
Mr. Forrest: In Western Australia we have a law legalising marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, but I think it has scarcely ever, if ever, been taken advantage of. I think myself that it is a very unfortunate thing that there should be different laws relating to marriage throughout
- ↑ Sir Michael Hicks Beach was in error. The majority on each occasion of the Bill passing was very large. The division lists show this. Sir Michael’s mistake was at once pointed out in The Times.
- ↑ The law in the Transvaal is similar to that adopted in Holland in 1839, when such marriages were allowed under dispensation.
