MARRIAGE LAWS

Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1920, Page 1

MARRIAGE LAWS

DISCUSSED IN HOUSE

MR WILFORD’S SUGGESTION

[Our Parliamentary Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, Sept. 14

A suggestion that tlie Marriage Amendment Bill, containing tlie new clause inserted by the [Legislative Council, should be referred to a ; committee of tho House of Representatives, in order that evidence might be taken upon it, was made in the House of Representatives by,,the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr Wilford). A Committee of the Legislative Council, said Mr Wilford had heard evidence for and against certain propositions. Then the Council Jiad amended the Bill in a certain direction, arid now the House would be asked whether to accent the amendment or disagree with it. He was speaking for his Party, wiiicli had considered the i riiatter. in , suggesting that a commijttee of the House should noiv hear evidence, for anti against the new clause, so that the members oi the A, ; i . rj I| lli -. 11 -1‘ f i .l. House might ,)>now the arguments on their side. The new clause which affected certain marriages had riot yet been considered by the House or by any committee of the House. Tf the Bill were now referred to a committee the people who wished to be heard, would have an opportunity to give their evidence on the very important points that liad been raised. The Pririie Minister replied that he had already had under consideration the idea of referring the new clause of the Bill to a Committee of the House. The position at present was that Committee’s worw was very heavy, ririd all the committees were fully engaged, hut some of therii Vroiild have time, to spare two or three weeks hence. There was a possibility of the Bill being referred to tlie Statute Revision Committee, but he had not looked into the matter yet. The Bill probably would not come, before. the House again for two or three weeks, and .in the meantime, lie would consult the Minister for Justice and decide whether it was desirable that the Ull should be referred to a committee.,

' Mr Wilford suggested that ,thc Statutes Revision Committee would not be the best committee to deal with the Bill. It consisted of lawyers and its special duty was fo see that legislation was drafted in proper form. He thought that a more suitable committee could be found to consider the pill and hear tpe evidence of the people who were affected by it.

STATEMENT BY. Mil ELLIOTT (Per Press Association.)

WELLING ON, Sept. 15.

The following statement has been issued by Mr H. Elliott regarding the marriage law amendment proposal to penalise those in any .questioning the validity of any civil marriage contract: “The pronouncement of Archbishop O’Shea, and Bishops Cleary and Broclie regarding this amendment to the Marriage Act are remarkable in their ingenuity in avoiding the real point at issue in this proposed legislation. The prelates would make it appear the aim of the hew Clause is to interfere with the religious liberty of Roman Catholics and to make it an offence legally for the members of that denomination to proclaim that marriage is a saci'a* ment, whereas this Clause —while permitting fullest legitimate liberty—proposes to nifike it aii offence to allege—either expressly, or even by implication—tluit any persons who have been lawfully married, are not truly or sufficiently married ; or that the issue of an,v lawful marriage is illegitimate, of born out of wedlock.” , ~ , The Roman Catholic Church had, he said, so alleged in a pink catechism ■and in approved publications. He held ho Church, or ho persons, could claim tlie Tight to make an allegation, find to do so was “an insufferable infringement of the civil rights and the religious liberty of others. ... P “This proposed legislation, h said “will vindicate the supremacy o British law. It will protect the rights of citizens, and guard children a gains tho stigma of being branded as illegitimate; and in so doing, will have the hearty support of every liberty-loving F-itsher. These are real injustices and a great wrong, which will be corrected by the passing of this legislation, an threats from Bishops are not likely to affect the minds of legislator, that evidence had convinced one of the strongest and most representative committees in Parliament of the uecewi for such legislation. Neither it i& like lv that the purpose of the legisla ion will be defeated by the introduction of words which would destroy the working of this