§ LORD BRABOURNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Bill legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister, received in 1878 from the Colony of Natal, was or was not carried only by the Speaker's casting vote in the Legislature of that Colony, such having been the grounds stated by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies for declining to advise Her Majesty to sanction the measure; and whether a similar Bill has since been passed by the Legislature of Natal, and, if so, whether it has received the Royal Assent? The noble Lord explained that he had occasion to ask a 408 Question in 1878 in "another place" upon this subject, and was told by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Bill was opposed by increasing minorities in the Natal Colony, and was only carried by the casting vote of the Speaker, and therefore he declined to advise Her Majesty to sanction the measure; but the information which Sir Michael Hicks-Beach received turned out to be incorrect. The Bill was, in fact, passed by considerable majorities, and he would now be glad to hear what course the Government would pursue.
§ EARL CADOGANwished, before the Secretary of State for the Colonies replied to the Question, to explain that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach did state that the first Bill referred to was passed only by the casting vote of the Speaker, but subsequently learnt that that was an error, the fact being that it was carried by a majority of 6 or 7. The smallness of the majority was not the only reason for not advising Her Majesty to sanction the Bill, but also because it was felt that a different law of marriage ought not to be introduced in Natal from that which prevailed in the other South African Colonies before the question of Confederation was settled.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved, that his answer to the Question had been, in a great measure, anticipated by the noble Earl who had just sat down. The first Bill referred to in the Question was rejected on the ground stated by the noble Earl. A second Bill, which was carried by a majority of 14 to 4, had been in this country for a year, and unless action was taken with regard to it the Bill would lapse, as the former one had done. This was not an ordinary case. It had been determined not to object to the laws which had been passed for legalizing these marriages in some of the Colonies; but the question as regarded Natal was peculiar. The marriage law was one of the subjects specially reserved for the Federal Parliament in the event of Confederation; and, therefore, at the moment when Confederation was under discussion in South Africa, he did not think it desirable that this Natal Bill should be sanctioned. If Confederation should not be adopted or should be indefinitely postponed, the matter would have to be again taken into consideration.