LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
RESISTANCE TO ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE •' SPECTATOR."]
Sin,—Without entering upon the general merits of the ques- tion raised by your correspondent Mr. E. S. Robertson, in your issue of August 24th, as to the justification for resistance to so-called oppressive legislation, I should be glad if you would allow me to point out that the recent judgment of the Privy Council upon the Marriage Law of Canada turned solely upon the construction of certain sections of the British North America Act, and can have no bearing upon the powers of the Home Rule Legislature contemplated by the Bill now before Parliament. Your correspondent asks, " Why, if under this judgment the Home Rule Parliament of Quebec has power to enact that no marriage shall be valid in Quebec unless celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest, cannot the Irish Parliament pass a similar law? " The answer is supplied by Section 3 of the Home Rule Bill, which provides that "the Irish Parliament shall not make a law so as . .
to . . . make any religious belief or religious ceremony a con- dition of the validity of any marriage." The British North America Act, on the other hand, by Section 92, reserves to the Provinces the exclusive power to make laws in relation to " the Solemnization of Marriage in the Province." Before any deductions are drawn from the Privy Council decision bearing upon anything outside the particular issue before the Board, the Lord Chancellor's concise and lucid judgment should be
read in its entirety. I need hardly say that I am not asking you to insert this letter as an argument in favour of Home Rule, but in the interests of historical accuracy, which is especially desirable in current political controversy.—I am, Sir, &c., W. REEVE WALLACE. The Athenwum, Pall Mall, S.W.
Previous page
