MARRIAGE LAW.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 November 1920, Page 1

MARRIAGE LAW.

FURTHER DISCUSSED IN HOUSE. (Our Parliamentary Correspondent.) WELINGTON, November 4The debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill was continued in the Houtß of Representatives' this afternoon. The report of the Special Committee recommending that a new clause added by the Legislative Council should be ac--1 oepted, was talked out last week, and this report was under discussion to-day. Members had much to say for and against the clause. Mr Isitt (Christchurch North) made a strong protest against the danse when lie said it would be justified only by dire need and this need did not exist. This clause was bound to be regarded by Roman Catholics as an attack on the doctrines of their religion. It would result in the association of the Government with a (bitter religious faction. The heads of the Roman Catholic Church were prepared to give an assujrance that the evils described by supporters of the clause would not arise, and this issuranoe ought to satisfy anybody not blinded by sectarian iu-, tolerance. The House had a perfect right to say that no person should question the legal validity of a. civil marriage but the clause went' beyond that. Jt made it an offence to question from a religious standpoint the sufficiency of a ‘ religious marriage and thus struck at the freedom of religious thought. It was a coercive legislation reminiscent of the had old days of the Test Act., He moved it should be referred hack to the committee. The most effective speech on the otli ir side .came from Mr Potter (Roskill) who said Catholic Bishops and priests were openly preaching that marriage outside of their Church was not marriage at all.. A certain Roman Catholic woman married by Registrar to a Protestant had given birth to a child. She was visited Try Archbishop O’Shea, who said: “It is a. pity tb,at ypji were not struck dead instead f of giving birth to a .child.” Th,e opuplb were married’ in the Presbyterian Church in Wellington in 1919. Th,e wife was treated with harshness and subjected ,t,o cruel neglect owing to hejr, refusal to be married by a priest,. Slic wrote to her mother on Sept. 22nd. last saying, “Jack and I were married by the Priest and everything now is alright.” Mr Potter quoted some other. instances without giving the names. Tlie debate was continued into the evening. , Members on one side suggested that Parliament ought to be. tolerant and that interference with religious beliefs of any section of people ought to he avoided, and that no good cause had been shown for the clause in the Bill. The members on the other side argu- ■ ed that the operation of the Ne Tom-; ere Decree in New Zealand had al-, ready produced evils and that ihe Government ought to insist upon the absolute validity of. a legal marriage in whatever form they were celebrated. Some hard things were said . aboujs Rev. Howard Elliott in the course of the debate. STATEMENT AND DENIAL. WELLINGTON, N.oy. 4. The Prime Minster speaking late, depied \varmly, a statement that the Rill had been introduced to repay the Protestant Political Association for the help given to the Reform party Association at the general election. Mr McCombs —“That is absolutely untrue.” Mr Massey,—l give that the most emphatic contradiction I can possibly give i.t, J only regret that tjie forms of this Rouse do npt allow me to say what I should Jiko to say about the statement, a.gd tjiej member .who made it. Mr Massey added lie had nothing to (i ) with the drafting of the clause by the .Council. J 1 is plain duty as Leadci of the House, was to see that members had an opportunity to vote on the JJiJI. The members of his party Were free to vote exactly as they pleased. The amendment moved by Mr Isitt, proposing to refer the report hack to the Committee was defeated at 1.39 a.m. by 44 votes to 2d. The House then agreed to cut out the reference to imprisonment in the clause, as .recommended by the .Committee. This left the line of £IOO as the penalty for impugning the validity of a lawful marriage. Mr Holland moved to strike out the words “truly and sufficiently” so as to make the clause read “alleges expressly, or by implication that any persons lawfully married are not married.” This amendment was rejected by 43 votes to 24. The position now is that managers representing tlie two Chambers must confer with the prospect of reaching an agreement on the amended clause. ° THE DIVISION LIST. The division on Mr Isitt’s amendment was as follows. For the Amendment 25. Atmore Bartram Edie Forbes Fraser Holland Horn, Howard Isitt Jennings McCallum McCombs Masters Parry Poland' Savage , Seddon Slde >' „ . 41 Smith, R, W. S. G Smith . Sullivan Veitch Wilford Williams. • Witty ' ~ Against the Amendment, 44. Anderson Ritchener Bollard g ur ? ett Coates Craigie J McC. Dickson. S. Dickson ■nr i j Guthrie A Hamilton B; Hamilton Hanan J”"! 8 >f Hawker, er ™“ IJoaWoy Hudson 80110 t

Jopes . Luke Lee Afcljeod Lysnar M a l c °hn McNicol Mitchell Massey E. Newman Dr Newman Parr Nosworthy Potter Pomaxe Powdrell Reed. R. H. Rhodes T. W. Rhodes Statham Stewart Sykes Wright Ypuog,