PARLIAMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 56, 3 September 1926, Page 9

PARLIAMENT

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. to-day. The case of the Mildred Elaine Smyth Divorce Bill was the first business taken. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) said he believed that Mrs. Smyth knew that her husband had been detained in prison before Bhe married him. Smyth had been made an habitual criminal, and Mr. Howard said he supported the findings of the Committee which had considered the petition for the Bill,. viz., that the divorce should be granted on the ground that there was no likelihood of the parties coming together again. There was no good reason, in his opinion, for keeping them together by law, seeing that the man had been classed as an habitual criminal. Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) said he was not satisfied that Mrs. Smyth had no knowledge of her husband's record. At any rate, the girl's father knew of the record, and it was a pity that he had ..not acquainted his daughter of it. The belief that the girl had been victimised was expressed by Mr. H. G. Dickie (Patea). Smyth, said Mr.' Dickie, was a pious humbug, and a liar into the bargain. Mr. J. S. Dickson (Parnell) said it was not a matter whether Mrs. Smyth was right or wrong. The point was whether the Government was going to allow a divorce to be granted oh the ground that a man had been declared to be an habitual criminal. He would like to know whether the AttorneyGeneral intended next session to amend the divorce laws in that direction. Mr. Dickson said that before any. decision was reached in the matter, tho Attorney-General should make a statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to these Divorce Bills. There were many women in the same position as Mrsi Smyth, but they wero not able to afford the expense of bringing a Private Bill to Parliament. He asked if it was the policy of the Government to legislate only for people who were able to afford it? The Prime Minister (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates) said it seemed to him that private members had certain rights in Parliament^-and that any member could bring- in a Private Bill. The House was then the master of its own actions entirely. He could not see that the Government should come into such a matter, for it would not be any use for a private member to promote a Bill at all. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E.. Holland): "Generally speaking, it isn't." (Laughter.) _ , Mr. Coates pointed out that Private Bills had to go through a very severe. process of examination. The House was master of the situation, and could do as it pleased in regard to the Bill. Referring to the remarks of Mr. Dickson regarding the future policy of the Government, he said that personally he had not considered the matter at all. Ho would be glad, however, to ask his colleagues to take the matter into serious consideration, and an announcement would be made to the country as to what action the Government proposed to take as a matter of policy in those cases. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said he considered tho House was doing a very dangerous thing. If they granted a divorce in this case,, everyone else would be entitled to a divorce if they found themselves in similar circumstances. He would vote against tho Bill. It was, ho said, satisfactory to note that throughout the Empire Parliament had so far kept clear of granting a divorce because of crime. The Hon. E. P. Leo (Oamaru) said there could be no doubt that tho man Smyth wasj as described by the gaol authorities, a pathological liar. He had stated, for instance, that before becoming engaged he told his wife and her parents of his crimes . extending over many years. That was entirely disproved. (Proceeding.)