MARRIAGE BILL.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16986, 8 November 1920, Page 6

MARRIAGE BILL.

6 MEMBERS EXPLAIN. (SPEfTAL TO "THU PRESS.") WJ'TLLINGTON, November G. In the House of Representatives today, Mr McOombs complained that threo lines lhad been left out of the Press Association's report of liis speech on the Marriage Bill in the Christchurch "Press." He referred to a complaint by Sir Joseph Ward about the abridgement by newspapers of Tcports sent by the Press Ass-ociatroiij to whictfi the State gave special rates for the transmission of reports over tho wires. The arrangement made was that when such reports were not published in full there should be in the newspapers a notification tiluit thev were abridged reports. Mr McCombs said that the three lines struck out of his speech were vital. They were as follows: "He thought the position would have met if_ it had been made an offence to question the validity of a legal,marriage." Mr McCombs stated ti'nat ho expressed himself definitely that none should be allowed to impugn tho validity of tho legal contract under our Marriage Act, and that he supported an amendment in that direction, but he was opposed to the State's interfering with any Church teaching as to what it believed: constituted a true marriage according to its doctrines. [Tho sentence referred to by Mr McCombs was telegraphed"He thought position would been "met if it been more offence to question validity of legal marriage." Whether he had said a "mere'' offencc or "moro of an offcnce" was obviously doubtful, and as the meaning in either case would be very obscure, we treated tlhe sentence as we usually treat mutilations, by leaving it out.] (press association telegram.) WELLINGTON, November 6. In connexion with the debate on the Marriage Act Amendment Bill, Mr Isitt wishes ,it made clear that he recognised the right of the State to prevent clergy questioning the chastity or persons civillv married, but ho objected to tho Bill because it went mudh. further than that. ENGLISH CHURCH PAPER'S VIEW. In its issue of September 17th last the "Church Times" printed the following leaderette: — "There must be some very ignorant persons in the New Zealand Parliament. These people are under fho strango delusion that the sacrament or marriage is a matter of civil law, and that tho civil legislator has a right to punish, by fine or imprisonment, those who preach tho Catholic doctrine of mn'rriagc. A Committea of this eccentric Legislature is reported in 'The Times' of Wednesday to havo advocated legislation to punish with fine or imprisonment Christian teachers who warn their flocks against State-sanction-ed adultery and its as wo trust that all Anglican clergy m New Zealand do We are afraid that eo far as this journal is concerned, it will, when it finds its way to the Antipodes, fall under tho penalties of these pinchbeck Wo put it, however, to these mistaken right honourable and honourable gentlemen, that persons of greater fames than themselves who have played similar tricks with religious liberty Jiave 'had to take a ticket to" Canossa, and we suggest to them that the journey is not a pleasant one. The Roman Catholic Church lias promptly moved, but on this matter it goes without saying that the Church of England in New Zealand will stand by them. If" the Anglican clergy tihere do not join with the Roman Catholic hierarchy by putting these legislators in their place, they will have betrayed the doctrines of their own Church and tJhe recent teachings of tho Lambeth Fathers."