THE MARRIAGE BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2199, 6 November 1920, Page 3

THE MARRIAGE BILL.

HOUSE INSISTS ON CLAUSES

When the report of the Committee on* the Marriage Bill came before the House on Thursday night, Mr Isitt moved to refer the report hack to the Committee, The division list was as follows:

For the Amendment (25): At more, Barti’am, Edie, Forbes, .Fraser, Holland, Horn, Howard, Isitt, Jennings, MeCallum, McCombs, Masters, Parry, Poland, Savage, Seddon, Sidey, R. W T . Smith, S. G. Smith, Sullivan, Veiteh, Wilford, Willias, Witty. Against the Amendment (44); Anderson, Bitchener, Bollard, Burnett, Coates, Craigie, J. M. Dickson, J. S. Dickson, Field, Guthrie, A. Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton, Hamm, Harris; Hawken, Herries, Hockly, Hudson, Hunter, Jones, Kellett, Lee, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, McNicol, Malcolm, Massey, Mitchell, A. K. Newman, E. Newman, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Powdrcll, Reed, R. H. Rhodes, TAW. Rhodes, Siatham, Stewart, Sykes, Wright, Young.

The Hon. E. P. Lee moved that the provision for a year’s imprisonment should he struck' out of the clause and that Messrs Craigie, Stewart, and the mover ho a committee to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the Legislative Council amendment.

Mr H. E. Holland movyd to amend the clause so as to make any pex’son liable who alleged that persons lawfully married wore not married. This was defeated by 43 to 24. Mr Lee’s motion was carried. ■

In reply to* a personal attack by Mr M’Combs (luring 1 the debate on the above measure, the Prime Minister said that, as lie had said on a previous occasion, the member for Lyttelton was the most accomplished adept at misrepresentation that be had known. Mis speech would do more to introduce sectarian bitterness than anything else. He vas the most dangerous man in (he House. .Mr jVPComhs had said that: this legislation was_ introduced as inpayment for the aid given by the P.P.A. at the General Election. “I give that a most emphatic denial.’'' Mr M’Combs: “It is true, nevertheless.” The Prime Minister: “I only regret (hat the foriiis of (he House prevent me from spying what 1, would say outside Hie House of the statement and (he man who made it. My life has been an open book, and there is nothing in if that cannot be exposed to public view. Can the lion, member say the same?" Mr M’Combs course 1 can.”

The Prime Minister;. “The ■ Imn. member referred to the fact that forty years ago I was a member and master of the local Orange Lodge. I admit it, and the Imn. member can spread that broadcast round the country and say that he heard me say it.” Mr M’Combs; “Hut you are Prime Minister now.” The Prime Minister: Yes. and my (Titles as Prime Minister coma first’’ There were other members of the Orange Lodge. ’ who had spoken strongly on (his question on the other side. He would not give namesc because he did not believe in introducing personalities.. He had also been a Mason and office-bearer in a lodge. Perhaps the member for Lyttelton would like to know that he was also an Oddfellow. “Is there anything else he would like to know of my lifei’'’ He Mas i w.l a member of the P.P.A..'and he had never attended any of (heir meetings. He had heard members speak on the other side who had received assistance from the P.P.A. It had been said that (he P.P.A. had been the friend of the Reform Parly. What about Kir James Alien*? The P.P.A, had fought him. The organisation that -would fight I lie second in command of the Reform Party in the way that the P.P.A. fought Kir James Allen could not be the friend of that party that some members make out. It had been said Unit he had introduced the Bill; but be did not .know anything about it until it m*us before the Legislative Council. While it M*as before the Statutes Revision Committee of that Chamber some people interested in the marriage huv came forward and asked to be allowed to give evidence. They were allowed to do so, and others Were notified that: they could give evidence if they desired. He remembered the evidence of Mr HowardEElliot, and the Rev, Robert Wood, and a very strong speech by Sir John Findlay on the other side. The Prime Minister recounted how the Bill came back to tbellor.se with the new clause inserted. After consulting the Minister of* Justice he had deferred the matter to a Kpeeial Committee, on which they took care to see that there was no mem- . tier with a strong bias on either side. The clause came back from the Committee amended, and it M ? as bis plain duty as Prime Minister, though he hated introducing sectarian questions, to give the House an opportunity of voting on it. He was nominally a member of the Committee, but he took very little part in the proceedings. He M*ould not have spoken that night but for the speech of the member for Lyttelton which, iu bis opinion, would do more to stir up sectarian strife than anything else that bad been said. His statements were mean and grossly unfair: and be bad done more harm than any other member of the House in the past ten years. He hoped that members would come to the vote that night. They wished to get on to the other business of the House. Every member would be free to vote as he wished. There would he uo “whipping” and no par-

D issue raised. He' wished there would be no revival of bitterness, and that afterwards they would be able to live together as friends, and unite, as they did in the Great War, without regard tb creed or sect for the good of the country.