MARRIAGE BILL.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16985, 6 November 1920, Page 9

MARRIAGE BILL.

CLOSE OF DEBATE IN HOUSE,

(PP. T.S3 ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, November .3. Tri the Jlousc of Representatives oarly_ this morning. Mr L. M. Isitt's amendment- to refer the report on the Marriage Act Amendment Bill back to the Committee for further consideration v/a.s negatived by 44 votes to 2">. The following was the division list: — For the Amendment (2o). Atrnore I'.irrv Bartram Poland Edia S:;-. a^e Forbes -Soddou Fraser iSidey Holland. Smith, 11. W. Howard Smith, S. G. jlorn .-»ullivan Isitt Veitc'n Jennings Wilford McCailun: ill.am^ McCombs Witty blasters Against the Amendment (44). Anderson Luke Bi'olienor Lysnar Bollard McLeod .Burnett MnNicol Coates Malcolm Craigie .Massey Dickson, J. M. Mitchell Dickson, J. >S. Newman, A. K. Field Newman, E. Guthrio Nosworthy Hamilton, J. R. Parr Hamilton, A. Pomare Hanan Potter Harris Powdrell . Hawken iteid Herries Rhodes, R. H. Hocklv Rhodes, T. TV. Hudson Statham Hunter Stewart Jones Sykes Kellett Wright Leo Young Pairs.: For the amendment, Thaeker; against the amendment, Glenn'. Mr TV. Downio Stewart then replied on tho debate on the question "That the report of tho Committee on tho Marriage Act Amendment Bill do lie on the table." He said that the only questions thi? House had to decide wero whether certain causes of mischief existed in the .community, and whether tho amendment proposed in the Bill was a remedy for that mischief. Ono speaker in tho debate had questioned the credibility of the Rev. Howard Elliott as a witness, but he wished to point out that tho chief evidence given beforo the Parliamentary Committees was documentary evidence, which was beyond controversy. Ho further questioned the accuracy of some of the statements mado that all the churches wero against tho clause. That was not so because many of the churches had said that they believed there was mischief afoot, rnd they asked that this mischief should be corrected. But at tho same* time, they also asked that their religious liberty be preserved and protected. How that was to bo done they had not demonstrated to the committee. It had been asserted that the Presbyterian Church was against tho clauso. All he knew was that they had beforo the Comniittco a witness who officially reoresented that Church, and who declared that ho wanted the clauso, and wanted it unaltered. Another branch of the Presbyterian Church had asked the committee to adopt tho Italian penal code. Compared with that code, their clause was milk and water. The question had been asked, TVhy had this matter been raised? Personally, ho knew nothing of tho alleged bargain between the P. P. A and tho J? of or m Party. Ho .•ould only suppose that tho Prime Minister had satisfied himself, by evidence or other means, that there was some need for such legislation, as he could not understand any Minister proceeding with such a controversial subject unless he was satisfied that it was necessary. The Prime Minister must have been satisfied that mischief existed, and that those suffering.tinder it wero entitled to somo protection. The matter had been carefully considered by the Committee, who had tried to come to an impartial conclusion, and the clause' was tho result. If clauso was found unfair or unworkable it could be amended next year, but ho thought it better to settle the controversy now than havo it hanging over their heads. The report was then laid on the Hon. E. P. Xiee moved that the ainendment made by the Legislative Council be agreed to, with the exception of the words "imprisonment for one year'' in sub-section 1 of clause o. This, ho said, would limit punishment for tho offence under tho clause to a fine.

This was agreed to. Mr Holland moved to delete from sub-section (a) tho words "truly and sufficiently," which, he said, meant that a person would be liable who f implied that anv persons lawfully married were not married. He also -moved to strike out from sub-section (b) the word "true," which would make the penalty apply in- the case of an implication that the issuo of a lawful marriage was horn out of wedlock. These proposed amendments were on a division rejected by 43 votes to 24.. Messrs Stewart, Craigie, and Lee were appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with tho Council's amendTho House Tose at 2.128 a.m. til» noon. COUNCIL ADOPTS AMENDMENT.

(press association telegram.) "WELLINGTON, November oIn the Legislative Council to-night tlio report of the Council's Managers, that the alteration made by the House in the Marriage Act Amendment Bill by striking out the imprisonment penalty be agreed to, was adopted.