REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT TRAVERSES OBJECTIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 227, 22 September 1920, Page 7

REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT TRAVERSES OBJECTIONS.

The following reply to criticisms published on the subject of the hill now before Parliament was made yesterday by the Rev. Howard Elliott: — "The inability displayed by the Rev. Isaac Jolly and Archdeacon Mac Murray to grasp the essential point in the proposed amendment to the Marriage Act causes one to wonder how rends the wayfaring man? The ordinary man and woman appear to have no difficulty in appreciating that the proposals of the legislative Council do not interfere with the liberty of Romanists to believe what they choose to believe, tint they do insist (and with a penalty) that Romanists shall not interfere with the laws of New Zealand by declaring certain marriages "'legalised concubinage" or '-adultery," and tho children of such marriages illegitimate, because the parties to the marriage (whether they are Romanists or Protestants), have not recognised certain doctrinal rules of the Pope of Rome. It is beyond contradiction (I have the positivo proof) that the Church of Rome not only deposes the law of the land in these matters, but urges that it is right for her subjects to do so. Women and men are terrorised by spiritual penalties and threatening* into compliance with Rome's claims or the desertion of tlie f offending party. Homes are being, as ; they have been, wrecked by priestly interference. Tlie Romanist laity practices a social boycott against the parties to certain marriages. Children are deprived of their rights, and suffer thereby throughout their lives. All these wrongs, injustices, and brutal insults are to be permitted. Tho law of the Dominion and the authority of the British Crown are to be contemned by Romanists, bishops, priests, and people, and no enactment must bo passed to uphold the rights of citizens iv this free country, or to maintain tl'e supremacy of British law. To do so would 'be "monstrous folly," "a wrong and a blunder." Fortunately, clearer thinking is likely to prevail than that displayed by Archdeacon MacMurray and the Rev. Laac Jolly, since the evidence adduced to the Statutes Revision Committee convinced that body of the necessity for legislation, and the majority of the members of the House of Representatives are likewise persuaded. "It has been objected that specitie instances of application of the Xc Turners decree "were not tendered to the Statutes Revision Committee in evidence. That.course was taken on the suggestion of tho Committee, after the writer had established the fact of operation of the Ne Temere decree and its implication. It wag thought undesirable to introduce tho names and circumstances of cases into public records when the facts were not questioned and the necessity for I proof did not arise. Ho-wever, I stated to the Committee that I was prepared i to produce evidence to prove each allegaI tion made, if the Committee so desired. j "The Rev. J. W. Shaw is to be congraI tulated on his clear apprehension of the j point at issue, and upon his clear stateI men* in support of tlie proposals of the 1 Legislative Council. He is in line with the finding of the Presbyterian Assembly lin 191], when that body approached Sir | Joseph Ward to take legislative action in i the direction now proposed, but without , result. Likewise the Wellington and ■ Hokitika Presbyteries and the Hutl Christian Association support the proposals. Therefore, with the great crowd •of witnesses testifying around the judg ment seat of the Legislature, the voices of disapproval are drowned, and it maj be expected that the bill will pass the ; Lower House as a needed and eminent!} and justifiable piece of legislation." ,'.