MARRIAGE LAW.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 October 1920, Page 5

MARRIAGE LAW.

THE QUESTION OF LEGALITY, PROTECTION OF CHILDREN.

BRISK DEBATE IN THE HOUSE,

By Telejvupu.—Press Association. i Wellington, Last Night. _ '■ In the House of Representatives thisj afternoon, Mr. W. D. Stewart (Dunedin West), pTPsented the report of the committee or. the Marriage Law ! Amendment Bill m follows — "I am directed i,o report that the committee recommends that the, House agree with the amendments made in the Bill by the Legislative. Council, by inserting now clauses 3a and 0 -with the exception of the words 'imprisonment for one year' in the new clause <t." Mr Stewart traced the progress of tho Bill and how the clause under discussion came to be 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. He would not state what evidence was heard. There was only one outstanding feature, and that referred to what were known as "double marriages.''

THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. Although tho Roman Catholic Church authorities did not give evidence hefore the committee, because they considered they could not state their objections briefly, he had communicated with Archbishop O'Shea and had received replies from him and from Bishop Cleary on the subject, and these wouid 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 is?.te authorisations for second religious marriages after the legal ceremony had already been performed. The committee had considered the clause in the light of the evidence and opinions put before it, and came to the conclusion that it could not accept the amendment suggested by Sir John Findlay.

They then considered the feasibility of inserting some words jthat would allay the fears of certain church people, but concluded it could not do this without whittling away the present provisions protecting the legally of marriage, and that the clause should stand, with the exception that they cut out imprisonment and made the punishment to be by flue only. It did not appear that the fears of the church people were well founded, but he did not think any Government would 'be anxious to inquire too close'.y into the church doctrine. Personally, Mr. Stewart thought that if the controversy went on the only ultimate plan to be adopted would be to make the civil marriage contract the only one recogised as legal, as was the case on the Continent. WOMAN'S CHASTITY.

Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition), said the Statute Book al- I ready provided penalties against any per- | sons making allegations of the character | complained of by those supporting this i Bill, but he could not understand why I the committee had struck out imprisonment as punishment for an allegation of unehastity in a married woman. He considered such an allegation deserved the severest punishment, and nothing less than imprisonment should be imposed, but he did not see the necessity for the Bill at all. The country wa9 facing difficulties of a serious character, an I it should be their endeavour to tech religious tolerance. He considered the attempt to introduce legislation which England had not thought necessary, simply showed that the Bill was an echo of the sectarian bitterness in the last election campaign. He quoted opinions of the church leaders in opposition to the clause, and declared he would oppose it to the end. The Hon. E. P. Lee agreed with Mr. Wilford that other laws provided for offences of the character referred to. This being so, he (Mr. Lee) could not see why thi3 duplication should be objected to, but children must be considered, and this Bill did that. The law was not directed against any particular church, but it was necessary that provision should be made so that no section could come out and open!/ question the validity of a marriage contracted under the laws of the, wuniry. Mr. H. E. Holland (Labor Par'.y's leader) regretted that the matter waa brought before Parliament at all, He declared the proposed legislation was the outcome of an agitation by one man, the Rev. Howard Elliott, and was engineered to create a division among the people on a sectarian issue, ind to disrupt labor organisations. The churches strongly opposed the measures, and one effect would be that the country would have to start building gaols for Bishops and priests who would refuse to obey the new law. Mr. Holland appealed to the people of Naw Zealand not to allow themsejves to be set at each others' throats.

PREMIER DISCLAIMS BILL. Mr. Massey refuted the statement by the member for Bnller thai sectarian bitterness was at the root of the proposed legislation, and so far as Air. Holland's reference to a danger of arousing serious popular differences were concerned, he (Mr. Massey) thought nothing was more likely to raise this kind of trouble than the speech of the member for Buller. Mr. Massey said his forebears left Scot'and to escape religious intolerance. In all the years of his association with politics in New Zealand it .would not be -.aid he was ever guilty of an intolerant action. He had nothing to do with bringing this Bill before Parliament. He had never received any deputation regarding the matter it dealt with, and no deputations came to him on Any such subject by any but the front door. He was a Presbyterian, and ho knew of no case in which Presbyterians questioned the legality of marriage performed by a minister of any ot'ior church. He disagreed with the sugquestion that this Bill was the outcome of the sectarian issue raised at the last election.

Referring to mixed marriages, Mr. Massey said the clause was intended to deal with these by giving protection to children of such marriages, which, he believed, they did not enjoy at present. He considered it his duty to assist in making provision to prevent the possibility of injustice being done to such children, and he would voto for the clause. DISCUSSION INTERRUPTED. Mr. R. McCallum (Wairan) challenged ;the Premier's statement that the matter was not one of party. He ctuu-antaciiuul /''VEill as a result ef an