PARLIAMENT.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3620, 5 November 1920, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

! MARRIAGE LAW. THE AMENDMENT BILL. FURTHER DISCUSSION BY PARLIAMENT. „ WELLINGTON, Nov. 4. The House of Representatives this afternoon resumed tile interrupted debate on the question that the report of the Marriage Amendment Bill Committee on the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Bill, together with the minules of the proceedings and the evidence, do lie on the table and be printed. Mr Wright answered the personal attacks made in the House upon the Rev. Howard Elliott, stating that no" less than 200 resolutions had been passed in I various parts of the Dominion supporting the clause now before the House. Mr. Isitt said no church in the land approved of the clause before the House, because it limited their power to question unehastity. He moved that the report be referred back to the committee for' further consideration. The debate on the amendment was continued till the telegaph office closed. Ater the telegraph office closed, Mr. Stewart replied to The debate on the question that the report of the Committee on the Marriage Amendment Bill do lie on the table. He said the only questions the House had to decide were whether certain causes of mischief existed in the community, and whether the amendment proposed in the Bill was a remedy for that mischief. One speaker in the debate had questioned the credibility of Mr. Howard Elliott as a witness, but he wished to point out that the chief evidence given before the Parliamentary Committee was documentary evidence, '• which was beyond controversy. He further questioned the accuracy of some of the statements made to the effect that all the churches were against the clause. That was not so, because many of the churches had said they believed there was mischief afoot, and they asked that this mischief should be corrected; but at the same time they also asked, that their religious liberty be preserved and protected.,..How that was to be done they, had no't demonstrated to the Committee.' It/had" been asserted that the "Presbyterian, Church was against, the 'clause.'' All he knew was that they had before the Committee a witness who officially represented that Church, and who declared that he wanted the clause, and wanted it un-

altered Another branch of lite Presbyterian Chifrch had asked the Committee to adopt the Italian penal code. Compared with that code, their clause was milk and wafer. The question had been asked: Why has this matter been raised? Personally he knew nothing of the alleged bargain between the Protestant Political Association and

the Reform Party. He could only suppose the Premier had satisfied' himself by 'evidence, or other means, that there was some need for such legislation, as he could not understand any Minister proceeding with such a controversial subject unless he was satisfied that it was necessary. TEe Premier must have been satisfied that mischief existed, and that those suffering under it were entitled to some protection. The matter had been carefully considered by the Committee, which had tried to come to an conclusion, and the clause was the result. If the clause was found unfair or unworkable, it could be amended next year, but he thought it better to settle the controversy now than to have it hanging over their heads. The report was then laid on the table.

I Mr. Lee moved that an amendment i made by the Legislative Council be 1 agreed to, with the exception of the words "imprisonment- for one year" in sub-section 1, clause B. This, he said, would limit the punishment for an offence to a fine. —Agreed to. Mr. Holland then moved to delete from sub-section A the words "truly and sufficiently", which, he said, meant that any person would be liable who implied that any persons lawfully married were not married. He also moved to strike out from sub-section B the word "true", which would make the penalty apply in the case of an implication that the issue of a lawful marriage was born "out of wedlock. — These proposed amendments were, on the division, rejected by 43 to 24. Messrs Stewart, Crombie and Lee were appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing! witbj the Council's amendments, and the House rose at 2.28 a.m. till noon today. The following is the division list on Mr. Isitt's amendment:'

For the amendment (25): Messrs. Atmbre, Bartram, Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Holland. Horn, Howard, Isitt, Jennings, McGallum, McComßs, Masters, Parry, Poland.'Savage, Seddon, Sidey, B. W. Smith. S. G. Smith, Sullivan, Veitch, Wilford, Williams "and Witty. Against the amendment"^44) : 'Messrs Anderson. Bitchener, Bollard. Burnett, Oontes. Oaigie. Dickson (Ohaimers'). Dickson (Tarnell), Field, Guthrie, Hamilton (Avarus.. Hamilton .'Wallace), Hanan. Harris. Hawken. Hemes. Hock-

ley, Hudson, Hunter, Jones,. Kellctt, Lee Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, MeNieol, Malcolm, Massey, Mitchell, Newman (E. K), Newman (E.), Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Powdrell, Reed, Rhodes (R. H.), Rhodes (T. W.), .Statham, 'Stewart, Sykes, Wright and Young.