MARRIAGE BILL.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16984, 5 November 1920, Page 7

MARRIAGE BILL.

FURTHER DEBATE IN THE

HOUSE.

(PRESS ASSOCIATION' TIXEGBAM.)

WELLINGTON, November 4. The Houso of Representatives, this • afternoon, resumed the interrupted debate on the question that the report of tho Marriage Act Amendment Bill Committee on the amendments made by tho Legislative Council in the Bill, together with the minutes of the proceedings and the evidence do lie on tho table, and be printed. Mr Wright answered tho personal attacks made in tho Houso upon the Rev. Howard Elliott f , stating that no less than 200 resolutions had been passed in various parts of the Dominion supporting the clause now before the House, and complimenting Mr Elliott on his campaign against the No Temcro doctrine. In all matters relating to marriage tho State, and not tho Church, must be supreme, and that was what the clauso aimed at. Mr Isitt said no Church in tho land ,approved of tho clause before the House, because it limited their power to question unchastity. Tho time for tho introduction of such legislation was inopportune, because there was in tho Dominion at the present time between 140,000 and 150,000 Irish Roman •Catholics, aud ovei-yone kniow that, owing to the things going on in thair native land, their temperament was not normal. This legislation was calculated to put a great strain on their loyalty. The Minister of Justice had said that this Bill v.*as not aimed at any particular Church, but everyone knew it was aimed at the Roman Catholic Church, and he said it was simply deplorable that the Government should line itself up with the p.P. A, which, though nominally political, was really religious. Where was the need for this legislation? There was already a remedy at civil law, which might be exercised by the person whose chastity was assailed, and ho maintained that • children wore likewise protected. Ho deprecated tho introduction of sectarianism into tho politics of tho Dominion, and declared that only the direst need should have induced the Government to introduce such a provocative and embittering measure. He afked the I'rimoMinister to reconsider the position, and consult with the authorities of tho Roman Catholic Church, who had pro- . mised not to unduly impose thoir doctrine upon the community, to soe if thero was nbt some placative way of solving this problem. For this purpose ho moved that tho report be referred back to tho Committee for further consideration. Dr. Thacker contended that the® Roman Catholic Church recognised that tho civil law must be carried out as at present by the issue of a marriage certificate, but that tho marriage should be validated in the prosonce of Almighty God by the Sacra» ment of Holy Matrimony. Mr Pettier, contrary to Mr Isitt, believed that the present was the time for the introduction, of this law because the No Temare Decree had. offered a challenge to the Crown, and the validity of British law, and bccause things had boon going on in New Zealand that should not bo allowed to continue. He Tead from the '"Pink" Catechism of tho Cptholic Church to show that, on the published statement of tho Church, persons wore not considered to bo married unless married In a Catholic Church. Tho fact that •he Church authorities _ had said the publication would be withdrawn from iale did not alter tho position. Catholics married to Protestants had asked bim to support tho Bill, because of .tho insults shown to them, and tho things said of their children. Love, said JVIr Potter, was at times stronger than religion, ar.d people would marry outside their Church, and if a legal :eromony waa performed, those people ■md their children should not afterwards have to be subjected to insults. Mr Holland's bitter attack on Mr El- , liott was not because of the religious discord sown, as stated, but because Mr Elliott constantly told his audiences to keep to constitutional law, and remain loyal. Mr Potter read letters and statements, with tho object or showing that the .Catholic authorities sndeavourod to induce Catholics marVied to Protestants to seek re-marriage by a priest. - The statement of various clerics that they would go to gaol rather than obey tho now legislation was an attempt to put fear and intimidation into the Government. i Mr Harris, said ho thought tho law of New Zealand should bo supreme, and that people who desired to observe the laws of tho land should bo protected in that observance, and that was all that the Bill demanded. Mr S. G. Smith said that the demand for this legislation was solely a result of Mr Howard Elliott's agitation. Thero was no demand for it from tho people. Tho P.P.A. was a most dangerous organisation, and was being j managed bv a most dangerous man. He would vote against tho clause, because it did not originate m tho House. It had not been asked for m the House, ( and was being forccd on tho Htousc by tho Legislative Council. It was hasty legislation which the Council was supposed to He stood for religious liberty, and would vote for religious liberty. • Mr Veitch said a study of the evidence had convincod him that somo change in the law was necessary to fortify the rights of the State, but he thought the present was nbt the most opportune tirao to make that change. More could be done by tactful negotiation than by this class legislation. Mr Savage said, as a member of tno Committee that took evidenco on this question, ho wished to dissociate h im " solf from the report of the Committee. The value of tho evidence given before tho Committee depended to a great extent upon the credibility of tne witness. The bulk of the evidence appeared to be given by Mr Elliott, and ho proceeded to quote references to Mr Elliott to show that his evidence ivas unworthy of credence. Tho debate was interrupted by 'the 5.30 adjournment. Mr Fraser urged members to pause before doing anything that would cause religious strife. He was not concerned in the churches' differences on theology, but if ever the occasion arose when iny church attempted,to_ interfere with ■ the functions of the State, he would be found fighting on the sido of the State. If any action was needed regarding marriage—which in the present case, he said, was not shown to be necessary—then they should face it courageously, and make civil marriage ?ory, allowing the parties to celebrate :iny religious phase of tho ceremony or sacrament according to the dictates of their particular ,faitli. If 'any lesson was to bo learned from tho religious upheavals of the pest, it was the need for a spirit of toleration. Until reeent'y, New Zealand had been free from religious feeling. The sectarian ferment that had lately arisen would die out, and ho believed that people would again live in amity. No body of men in tho country had any right to interfere, as was "proposed, with the doctrines of any church in tho land. Mr Wright, speaking to Mr Isitts amendment, said he would vote against the amendment. The elauso to which objection had been taken provided protection which at present was lacking for persons in certain circumstances, iio asked if any church was justified in passing an edict that was contrary to the law of the land- Members had said that thero was no demand for the amendment of the law now suggested, hut Mr Wright said the Presbyterian Church several years ago had urged action against the promulgation of the No Temere decree in New Zealand, but nothing had been done. No Protestant

Church, however, no matter how much it objected to certain provisions of the existing law, had ever questioned the full validity of a marriage contracted under that law. What the objecting churches did do was to resolve to get such provisions altered. So far as the penalty for an offence against the law was concerned, ho thought it need not involve a fine. Tho removal of an offending clergyman's nam© from the registrar would have been sufficient punishment. Mr Atmoro deplored the irruption of this disturbing question in a young country like New Zealand, when men should be concentrating their united efforts on effacing the disastrous effects of the recent war. He agreed tliat tho law of the land must be superior to tho religious law of any section of the people, but so long as a church did not impugn the validity of civil marriage, the State had no right to interfere with that church's doctrines in the matter of tho sacramental character of marriage. Mr Bartram said the proposed legislation was a reflection on our civilisation. He believed that the Bill was an insidious attempt to smash up the solidarity of the Labour Party. There had been no demand for any amendment of the law as it stood.

Mr Lysnar said he had been asked a question on this subject during the election, and he had replied that so long as it did not run counter to the law of the land, he would not interfere with the doctrinal teaching of any church on the matter of marriage, but if any church infringed the law of tho land, action must be taken. The Roman Catholic authorities stated that it was already their intention to modify tho section of the catechism regarding tiio sacrament of marriage, so that it would not clash with tho statute law. If thev did this, they could have no wellfounded objection to the provisions of the Bill under discussion. His position was that a wrong existed, and it was therefore the duty of members to vote for the remedy. , Mr Edie, in supporting Mr Isitt s amendment, said ho was prepared to go on the public platform and justify his vote. He thought it frould be a good thing if the measure wero held over till next session, when the feelings of the people might have regained their enuilibrium. Mr Masters said ho had not thouaht much about this matter, and therefore he was prepared to be guided by others who had given it thought. So far as he could 6ee, churches representing 79.73 per cent, of the people were against it, and therefore he was against

it. . 1 Mr J. R. Hamilton said the source of all this sectarian bitterness was due to tho establishment of the Roman Catholic Federation, which held sway some years ago. So long as it was allowed to do as it pleased, thon eveijtliing was all right, but so soon as it was opposed, then they were met with the cry of sectarian bitterness. He objected to anv church taking up the attitude that" if people were not' married according to its particular tenets, thev wore not lejxnllv married. Mr McCombs asked tho Pr.ime Minister to remember his responsibility m ti'iis matter, for' his responsibility was undoubtedly great. If the Bill passed, he feared it would fan tho fires or religious hatred throughout the country. Tho Bill was merely tho price which the Reform Party ihad to pay for fretting into office with th©» aid or tlio P.P.A. Mr Massev hotlv repudiated the suggestion that" the Reform Party got into power by the aid of the P.P.A., or that ill had any price to pay to that body. There was not a particle of truth in such a statement. He traced the history of the Bill, and the hist<?ry of Uio amendment which was put in by the Legislative Council. * That amendment had been referred to a carefully-selected Committee of the House, and they had 'reported on it. That beiing done, Urn duty was to see that the House had a fair opportunity of expressing its opinion on it. _ He was not making it a party question *„ lie was not endeavouring to influence a single member. He only hoped that the House would express its opinion that night, as he wanted to get on with other important} business. At the same time, lie now saw no hope of finishing the work of tho session this week, because he was not going to rush legislation. Mr Massey concluded by making an appeal to members to approach tho matter in a Calm and tolerant spirit, and eliminate bitterness from tihe debate. Mr It. W. Smith said ho failed' to find any justification fortius legislation, and the Prime Minister had given no reason for it in his speech that night. After midnight the debate was carried on by Messrs Holland, Sullivan, Howard, and Parry, who supported Mr Isitt's amendment, and by Mr J. S Dickson and Mr McLeod, who opposed it. At 1.26 a.m. a division was taken on Mr Isitt's amendment, which was rejected by 44 votes to 25. Mr W. Downie Stewart was replying when the Telegraph Office closed at 2 a.m. PRIME MINISTER AND MEMBER FOR LYTTELTON. (STECIAI* TO "THE PRESS.") WELLINGTON, November 4. There wero queues waiting at tho House of. Representatives this evening, and as soon as the doors were opened, tho galleries were quickly filled with men and, women, eager to hear tho debate on the Marriage Bill. Numbers wero unable to gain admittance. The Speaker repeated his afternoon's warning about interruptions, and the debate proceeded in an orderly manner. Tiie objections to the Bill as it stands have come entirely from the Opposition and the Labour benches. Both tho men's tho women's public'galleries remained crowded after the supper adjournment. Mr McCombs, during his speech, said the Bill was the result of tho help received at the last election from tho P.P.A., which was one of the dirtiest, one of tho iiithiest, devices ever resorted to in this country to help a political party into power. He asked tho Prime Minister to forget that he had been once a master of an Orange Lodge, and to look at this matter as the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Air Massey replied somewhat warmly to the member for Lyttelton. Mr Mascey said ho did not pretend to bo perfect, but his life had been an open book, and ho was not ashamed of any leaf in it. Could the hon. member for Lyttelton say that? „ Mr McCombs: Undoubtedly. How can vou say otherwise? Mr Massey said it was true that 40 years ago he had been master of a local Orange Jiodge. He admitted that, and lie was not ashamed of it, and the member for Lyttelton, if he liked, could spread it throughout tho length and breadth of this country. What had the hon. gentleman got to 6ay to that? Mr McCombs: You are tho Prime Minister. . . Mr Massey: I am Prime Minister, and mv duty as Prime Minister comes first. 1 have also heard men to-night, who belonged to Orange Lodges, make very strong speeches on the other side. But I am not going to bo so mean as to mention their names. Tho member for Lvttelton might also like to know that I am a Mason and an Oddfellow. Is there anything more he would like to know about my life and character, because if there is, I am quite prepared to tell him? ]yir Massey denied that ho was a member of the P.P.A., and lie pointed out that at the last election the P.P.A. had fought Sir James Allen, the second in command of tho Reform Party. Ho protested against the grossly unfair insinuations of the member, for Lyttel°Mr Holland' said the Prime Minister had, by implication, suggested that the member for Lyttelton's'lifo was not an open book. If the Prime Minister s life had been as open as that of the

! member for Lyttelton, then he would have something to bo proud of. There • had never been meaner tactics employed j in the House than the Prime Minister I had employee! in reply to the member j for Lyttelton. These tactics were, he added, in keeping with the tactics the Prime Minister had adopted throughout his political career'.