MARRIAGE LAW BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2196, 30 October 1920, Page 3

MARRIAGE LAW BILL.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE

Wellington, Oct. 27,

In the Tlovii.se of Representatives to-day Mr W. Downic Stewart presented (he report of the Committee on the Marriage Law Amendment. Bill as follows: —‘T am directed to report that the Committee recommends thnt.the House agree with the amendments made in the Bill hv the Legislative Council l»y inserting now clauses 3 to d, with exception of (he words ‘imprisonment for one year’ in new clause G." Mr Stewart traced the progress of the Bill, and how (he clause under discussion came to lie inserted in another place. The Committee had invited interested parties who had not already been heard, or who had any fresh representations to make, to do so. Ho would not state what evidence was heard; (here was only one outstanding feature*, and that referred to what wore known as “double marriages.” Although the Roman Catholic Church authorities did not give evidence before the Committee, because they considered they could not stale their object ions briefly, he had communicated with Archbishop O’Shea, and had received replies from him and from Bishop Cleary on the’subject, and (hose would appear in the report of the evidence. So far as the Committee was able to discover, it apparently had not been the practice in New Zealand to issue authorisation for second religious marriages after a legal ceremony had already been performed. The Committee bad considered the clause in the light of the evidence and the opinions pul before it, and had come to the conclusion (hat it could not accept the amendment suggested by Sir John Findlay. They then considered the feasibility of inserting some words that would allay the. fears of certain church people, but concluded that it could not do this without whittling away.

rhe pre-mm provisions protecting the legality of marriage, a.ml that the clause should stand with the exception that they cut mil the imprisonment penalty and made punishment to he by line only. It did not appear that die fears of dm elmreb people were, w?il founded, but he did not think any Government would he anxious to impure too closely into Church doctrine. Personally, Air .Stewart said lie thought that if the controversy went on, the only ultimate plan to he adopted would he to make a civil marriage contract the only one recognised as legal, as was the ease mi the Continent. Air T. M. ’Wilford said the Statute Book already -provided penalties against any persons making allegations of the character complained of by those supporting the- Bill, hut he could not understand why (he Committee had struck out die imprisonment as punishment for an

allegation of unehasiuy in a married woman. He considered that such an allegation deserved Ihc severest punishment, and nibbing less limn, imprisonment should be imposed, bid lie did not see, neces-,-ilv for the Bill al all. The eofintry was faring difficulties of a serious character, and it should be ibeir endeavour to leach religious loleranee.-. Ho considered the attempt to introduce legislation, which England had not thought necessary, simply showed (hat the Bill was the echo of the sectarian bitterness in lhe

.'asl election campaign. He quoted Hie opinions of church leaders in opposition to the clause, ami declared flint: he would oppo-o it to the end.

Hon. E. P. Lee agreed, with Mr Wilford that other laws provided tor i.(Tences of the diameter referred to. This being; so, he (Mr Hoe) could not see why Ibis duplication should be objected to, bid Hie children must la* considered, and this Bill did (Iml. The law was not directed' atraihsl any particular church, but it was'necessary that provision should be made so Hud no section could come out and openly question Hie validity of a marriage contracted under the laws ot Hie country.

Mr Holland said he, regretted the mailer was brought before Parliament al all. He declared that the proposed legislation was the outcome of agitation by one man —Lev. Howard Elliott, and avus engineered to create division among the people on a sectarian issue, and to disrupt the labour organisations. The churches were opposed !<> Ihe measure, and on'e effect wbuld be (hat the country would have to start building’ gaols for bishops and priests, who would refuse to obey the new law.

Mr Massey refuted the statement by the member for Bnlier that sectarian bitterness was at the root of the proposed legislation, and so far as Mr llolfond’s references to the danger of : rousing serious popular differences were concerned, he (Mr Massey) (bought nothing was more likely to raise this kind of trouble than the speech of the member for Buffer. Mr Massey said Ids forebears left Scotland to escape religious intolerance, and in all the years of bis association with politics in New Zealand it could not bo said he was ever guilty of !in intolerant action. He bad nothing to do with bringing this Bill before Parliament, and lie bad never received any deputation regarding the matter it dealt with. No deputations came to him on any subject by any but the front door. He avus a Presbyterian, and lie knew of no ease in which Presbyterians questioned the legality pf a marriage performed by the minister of any other church. He disagreed with the suggestion that this Bill was the outcome of sectarian issues raised at

(lif* last election. Referring I" “mix c-d. marriagefv ’ M r AI asscy s.a i d iho clause was intended to deal with i lit * e In giving protection f tlie children of such unions, which he believed lliey did not on.j<>y af pre.sonl. Hie considered it was his duty to assist in making provision to prevent the possibility of injustice being done to such children, and he would vole for the clause.

Mr MeCaliiim challengedthc Premier’s statement, that the matter uas not one of party. He characterised the Bill as one of party. lie characterised the Bill as the result of the agitation by Rev. Howard Elliott, whom he severely criticised. Mr Wright declared that the Bill was necessary as a protection to certain people. He challenged .Mr Holland and Mr MeCallnm to repeat their statements concerning Mr Elliott outside Parliament.

The discussion was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment, •