MARRIAGE LAW.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 November 1920, Page 5

MARRIAGE LAW.

FINALTY AT LAST. PENALTY MADE A FINE. (By Wire.—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. The proceedings on the Marriage Amendment Bill have reached finality at last. The Legislative Council refused at first to accept the amendment made by the House in one clause. This amendment was the omission of provision for imprisonment as the penalty for impugning a legal marriage. Managers were appointed, and alter a conference it was agreed that the clause should remain, in the form in which it left the House.

This means that the penalty is a fine of .CIOO, but under ordinary law law refusal to pay such a fine would involve imprisonment.

THE COUNCIL INSISTENT. WANTS IMPRISONMENT CLAUSE. By Tele£rrapli.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the Legislative Council this afternoon, a message was received from the House ron'erning the Marriagj Amendment Bill. Sir Francis Bell said that while there was probably no objection on the part of the Council to the alteration made to the clause, it would be best to send a message in (ho usual form, namely, that the Council insisted on the amendment.

This was agreed to, and the following reason was adopted: ''That the offence defined was such that in some eases the infliction of imprisonment would not be an excessive punishment." Later the Council agreed to a request of the House for a conference on the marriage question. Sir Francis Bell and the Hons. 0. Samuel and P. J. Nerheny were appointed managers to meet managers from the House at 5.30 p.m. The House received the Council's reasons for disagreement, and they were disagreed with. Messrs. Craigie and Stewart and the Hon. E. P. Lee Were appointed managers to meet the managers of the Council.

THE PREVIOUS DEBATE. HOUSE REJECTS AMENDMENTS. HOW MEMBERS VOTED. Wellington, Nov. 5. After the telegraph office closed, Mr. W. D. Stewart (Dunedin West) replied to the debate on the question that the report of the committee on the Marriage Amendment Bill lie on tho table.

He said that 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 the remedy for that mischief. One speaker in the debate had questioned tho credibility of the Rev. 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 statements that all the Churches were against the clause. That was not so, because many of the Churches had said that they believed there was mischief about, and they asked tha* this mischief should be corrected, but at the same time they also asked that their, religious liberty should be preserved and protected. How that was to be done they had not 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 that clause, and wanted it unaltered. Another branch of the Presbyterian Church had asked the committee to adopt the Italian penal code. Compared with that code their clause was milk and water.

REASON FOR THE BILL.

A question had been asked, why had this matter been raised? Personally he knew nothing ofllie alleged bargain between the P.P.A. and the Reform Party. Ho could only suppose the Premier had satisfied himself by evidence or other means that there was' 3ome need for such legislation, as ho could not understand any Minister proceeding with such a controversial subject unless he was satisfied that it was necessary. The 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 emmittee, who tried to come to an impartial 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. The Hon. E. P. Lee moved that the amendment, made by the Legislative Council be agreed to, with the exception of the wordu "imprisonment for one year" in sub-section 1, clause 0. This, he said, would limit the punishment for an offence under the clause to a fine. This was agreed to. .Mr. Holland then moved to delete from sub-section A the words "truly and sufficiently/' which, he said, meant any person would be liable who implied that any persons lawfully married were not married, ire also moved to strike out from sub-section 11 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' a division, rejected by 'l3 votes to 24. Messrs W. D. Stewart, J. Craigie, and the Hon. K. P. Lee were appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing' with the Council's amendments. The House rose at 2.2S a.m. till noon to-dav. THE DIVISION LIST. The following is the division list on Mr. Isitt's amendment:— For the amendment (25).—Messrs Atmore, Bartram, Edic, Forbes, Fraser, Holland, Horn, Howard, Isitt, Jennings, McCallum, McCombs, Masters. Parry, Poland, Savage, Seddon, Sidey, R. W. Smith, S. G. Smith, Sullivan, Veiteh, Wilford, Williams, Witty. Against tha attendmsilt (44,1.—Messri