MARRIAGE LAWS AMENDMENT

Grey River Argus, 26 November 1920, Page 5

MARRIAGE LAWS AMENDMENT

AN EFFORT TO DIVIDE THS WORKERS. ON LINLI, ~x SECTARIAN BITTERNESS. J When 1-ie c.oni::nUi'e "s report on tin I iio.V mm t iUlit'lllli'llCUt to the Marj iui£o Act. Ar.ieiiiimciii Bill was before Ik: Hot:*; 1 ox lioui'i'soniHtives, M* .11 -••'. H(-l?.(i:i!. cii:i!n;!!:i; or the -J'arUii•ni'mary Labour J'avty, said: — • .•>:.>t.:;Kin{r on h-o^a.f of ihe organ i sod workiM'S of Ihis rummy, as well as foy liio 1 ;;rii:iiiieumry Labour Party*''*! wish to say that it is most regre. table that this matter should have been bvouffht before Parliament at ail. One could understand ii there were am oubiic demand xor this iegisiat-ion, bia • •hero has .been no such demand, and one naturally aslcs oneself how the proposed legislation came to be originated. It is signiiicant that it was not originated in this Chamber but in the Legislative Council, J^vliosc memncrs are beyond the .jcaiin of the popn- „ lar .constituency. Back in June of this year a deputation irom the Protestant Political Association publicly waited noon tl:e Minister of .Education with respecT. to certain railway privileges which were then held by several lady 1 teaeliers engaged in Ca.'.ho.ic schools. That deputation was reported in the ] public Press; but ANOTHER DEPUTATION rook place the same clay, of which m report whatever appeared in the da?h Prefcs, but which was, apparently indis crcetiy, reported in the oificial orgai: of Air Howard Ellio-lt, the "Nation.' The •' Nation 5 ' of June 10, 1920, having referred to the public deputation which waited oa the Minister of Education went on to say:; — "A. deputation of a more private character waited upon the Prime Minister, and was cordially received. Matters of considerable importance wore .. touched upon and doubtless the re- ■ suits will be made apparent in the future. ' ' Mt -Massey: Arc you referring to meT Mr Holland: I have quoted from a report in the official organ of the Protestant Political Association. Mr Massey: All I can say is that h a deputation waited on me this matier was never hinted at. *■ Mr Holland: I am not going to say any raore with respect to "hat. I do want to say that this matter originated with Mr Howard Elliott; and the aiMendmcnt inserted in -the Marriage Act Amendment Bill in the other Chamber was the direct outcome of representations made not by or on behalt' of the general public but made t>y huu on behalf of Mr Howard Elliott. I say it would be a fair thing f or uither branch of tho legislature to take into consideration

THE CHARACTER OF THE MAN

who makes these demands and allegations. There is no man in New Zoa ;aiid who handles the truth more recktes»ly than Mr Howard Elliott. There :& uo man with a more ignoble charac ■er than Mr Howard Elliott, the man who deliberately defamed a dead wo uih,n, and who, for having done that oaae thing was subjected to the ignominy of being publicly flogged by tho slandered woman's brother — a -returned soldier. Honourable members wil have read tho strictures made on Mr Howard Elliott by the Magistrate, who was a Presbyterian,. when Mr Elliott'.* usasilant was before the Court. Bui that is not the only occasion on which Mr Howard Elliott has lied flagrantly. Over and over again he has declared that the trades unions of this country a-ro- Tun by Catholics. There is, oi eoursc, no foundation for that statement. When I was editing the "Maori land Worker," he made 'the statement in public" "that the "Maoriland Wori: er" was controlled by Catholics; ami at t^he time there was not a Catholic on either the managerial, c«l: torial, or mechanical staff of the ]•:; per, nor was there a Catholic on ilv Newspaper Board. There was no you sou why Catholics should not hay« been there, but there was not one; i. was a coincidence; and still the mtu 1 have referred to uttered that lie b public. I am not here to make a cas. for the Catholic Church nor for pin other church.- I am here to put th.' case from tlic viewpoint of

THE LABOUR MOVEMENT.

Only the other day, when speaking in Christchurch, this same, man declare, that 67 per cent, of the public «orvants of Queensland are Roman Catholics. He must; have known, as we ah knows, that that lie was propagated :v Queensland some two years ago, and the then Premier of Queensland cause. 1 h. return to be made showing the pro portions in which the various roligiom were represent in the Public Service and it was proved that the Catholics•jo employed were far below the pro portion of their numbers so far, us thpopulation was concerned. He must have known that, yet he deliberately made that false statement. And it is at the request of this man fhat Parliament is asked to enact clgislation that is likely to set this country aflame. When the people cannot be divided 011 any other issue, you can safely divide them upon the religious issue. That v, well known. I say here, and I say It deliberately, that the amendment which is the subject of this report oow before the House was engineered expressly for the purpose of dividing the people, and particularly the workers on the -sectarian issue. I want to , d r that every man in this Chambei who has the welldoing of this conn try at heart will not .vote for tins legislation to proceed. What does it ir,ean if we allow- it to proceed? B menus that wo are going to have the bitterest outburst of sectarian strife ifhat this "country ha* evpr known. Those honourable members who have read the proceedings before the Legislative Committee will know that the whole of -the evidence give* there was directed against the Catho he Church. For what reason? Why. :,11 *he principal churches stand „n> practically the Bfime position with Te Lrd to the marriage laws It is to their credit that a section of the Presbyterian Church is objecting to this legislation.

THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

in its Westminster Confession., of Faith, lays this clown: — '"It is lawful for all sorts, of people to many who are able with judgment to give" their consent; yet it is the <lutv of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore, *uch as profess ttie .true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters? 'neither should such as are Godly be unequally yoked by matry-

ing with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies. " Mr Lee: They do not. say that they I must not. I Mr Holland: They say that, they should not. The implication is that the marriage is wrong and how can a wrong marirage be right? Not only that, but this is also written into the Westminster Confession I—and1 — and this is the. answer to the Minister's interjection: — ''Marriage ought not to be within tho degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word, nor can such incestuous marriage ever, be made lawful .by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wyfe. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in Iblood than of own." There is the position, from the Presbyterian viewpoint. Then take the Anglican formula — you will find in the book of common prayer: — ■ "I require and charge you both ... for be ye well assured that so many as arc coupled .together otherwise than as God's word doth allow, are not joined together by "God, neither is their matrimony lawful." There it is, written into the Church of England formulate their matrimony is not lawful unless they are married according to God's word. And this man, Mr Howard Elliott, must have forgotten the conditions of membership of HIS OWN ORGANISATION. While I .was engaged in recent election campaigns I was inundated with the literature of Mr Howard Elliott, and several of the membership cards of his organisation were sent to me. Now, the membership card of tho Protestant Political Association contains Hie following: — "I, , declare that I am .1 British subject and a Protestant. 1 reject as superstitious the Roman doctrine of .the Mass and declare that I am not married to a Romanist, nor will E marry one.' ' The only condition on which they will admit a man to the Protestant Political Association is that he is not married to a Romanist, and, if he is unmarried, and he will pledge himself not to many a Romanist. What does that mean? It means tfiat in the opinion of this body a marriage with a Romanist is not a lawful marriage in the sight of God. It means that if it means anything at all. I could go on quoting from the vteachings of the vari-^ ous churches. In the laws and rcgula-' tions of the Australian Wesleyan Methodist. Church it was laid down that members and preachers should only marry in the Lord. I do not know whether this principle is incorporated in the laws governing the amalgamated. Mot'hodist churches. • It was also laid [down in the laws and regulations 3 jhave 'referred . to that: — j "As marirage is a religious as well 'as a civil contract, the marriage of our iown members and adherents should therefore be performed not by the Registrar, but by one of the ministers of their own church." The Methodists are not so pronounced as the Presbtycrians, Anglicans, and Catholics, but they declare for the religious marriage as against the civil Vnarringe. I want to make it quite dear that I stand for full recognition

THE CIVIL MARRIAGE, I but I am not going to be a party to siiy^ to any church that, it shali not .iave. the form of religious marriage and .he doctrine of marriage, it thinks it -Slight to have. If I want, actively, :o belong to any church I have to conform to the doctrines of .that church, and if I cannot do* that I can get out of it. There is no hardship about rlitit. Now, New Zealand recognises .he legality of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but all the churches lo not. They declare that such a mar.iage is wrong, and not lawful in the ■iight of God. Again, under the New .Zealand law the re-marriage of divorced persons is quite legal. But many of .'•he churches refuse to recognise the right of divorced ■ persons to remarry. There is another aspect of this matter to which I wish .to draw attention. There is not one of the churches in New Zealand whose 'representative men have at some time or other declared that Socialism would destroy .the marriage ~tie. t venture to say that representatives of all the church have at some time or jther libelled Socialism and the Labour movement in this way, but the Labour movement has never raised a demand that they should be gagged. We are prepared to stand on ihe facts of the •ase, and on the facts we can disprove .he charges. Archbishop Redwood some years ago went out of his way to attack the Socialist movoment, and only the abhor day I read a statement in a Catholic" paper to the effect that Socialism is immoral. We can meet those attacks on the public platform and in the public Press, and w r e can disprove I ill the charges, but we would not for 1 a moment suggest .that these people should be gagged, and prevented from giving utterance to what they believe. Honourable members should not lose sight of this serious aspect of the case, ff wo carry this amendment into law ive are going to FILL THE GAOLS

with the heads of >the churches. What i?ood will that do? If this is made .aw we shall have Archbishop O'Shea constituting tho Catholic Ohurch n Council of "Action the Anglican Church making common cause, and the Presbyterian Church coming in as a moderate supporter of the fight. I have already given a promise that when tho church dignatories go to prison I will make one to visit them there. If he is correctly reported, Archbishop O'Shea has said in his letter to the Prime Minister: — ' "I intend to say that if this law is passdthas it. stands, and has the meaning put -upon it by the learned counsel whom we have consulted, then I will take the first opportunity of deliberately breaking it. I will encourage my priests and people to disobey it on every possible ocacsion. And as E intend to pay no fines you will have to imprison me. And I will state that I know that the other Bishops, Priests, and Catholics .of "the Dominion will take ii|> exactly the same attitude to- 1 wards the law." By the way, the learned counsel referred ito are Sir John Findlay and Mr Myers, If this amendment' becomes law, we shall have to leave off building houses for the people, and we. .will have to start building, gaols for the priests and the parsons. Mr Fraser: Non-essential buildings. Mr Holland: Yes, non-essential buildings. The Anglican Bishop of Dunedin has stated the Church of England viewpoint. He has said: — "People married before a v ßegistrar are truly and sufficiently married &c-

--not ml N ° W Zealand but coY" I T ""ffl^tly. married- acof Go? Ji 1O n ehm ; Ch a " d in the si S ht spiHtuV h ? y haV ° 110t sou g»t the church be " c( ' CtICHI *«>»l* the stake. 7 ,§ rea ; Principle is -at riago we mn'v /" •. c Caso of mar" its effecta \?h "^ Cnticil!o aJ ™ and

WOULD DO THE SAME,

rea?- ? l0SS ?" thni evenl »S they had ™ P p T ort j*T — beta. US'

Mr Holland: Ido „o t wish to mi. represent .the position in a "y • ™ T l ktatcmont who,, ], c says tho Presbv ?7 came before them. But her, i, >c resolution unanimously carried by bor Stm „„ ££*. fuil'v' 1 !" th ,° Presb J"ery, having careh^ "Jges Parliament to preserve the T-Sit o± every churdh to hold and deehrc •ts religious doctrines, and at the same « me adequately to protect the rights of all persons who conform to the la w \f w *"? 1U res l )ect t0 marriage - An Ho! 2 M '? at happened t0 «> a <? Mr w ii M ? mb T C1 " : Xt was held over. cairied at the meeting. If the recommen^ions of Sir John Findlay "nd M} Myers had been carried into eft:oct:; if the words "according tl ! lav •> had been inserted after the. words truly gnd sufficiently married,'" and Jt the word. "legal" had been'substitutcd for the word " true "• before the '■vord < wedlock," the whole -position •vould be met, and there need , not be any conflict about the matter. I take it that, all we are concerned about, is that

THE CIVIL MARRIAGE

shall be upheld. There is no evidence ■that it has not been upheld. I. read the evidence given before the Legislative Council Committee very carefully, and I could not find in one particular where Mr Howard Elliott had substantiated his charges; indeed, I could not-* find a definite charge. I v'o'uld only find a mass of vague generalities, which were totally unsupported by. evidence. If ,fhe position were as it. has been alleged, and if the people were really suffering under the laws of either ,the Catholic Church, the Church of England ,or the Presbyterian Church, I would readily be one to make an alteration so that the suffering would be ended;- but there has been no demand whatever from the public for any changes. Then we have Bishop Clcary's statement outlining the I Catholic viewpoint, of which statement I 1 have made a condensation from the [public Press. Bishop Cleary seems to me to be one of the clearest of the men who expound the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. He declares that Catholics regard marriage as a sacrament, and that for them no marriage is complete in the sight of God if made outside the Church. That, I say, is a matter for Catholics alone. If a Catholic says that marriage for him is not complete within the sight of God unless made within .the church, I say by all means let him make his marriage within the church; but the civil marriage must be recognised. It is claimed that the church is a voluntary organisation it has a perfect right to lay do wm the conditions under which persons shall be admitted to its membership. In this it is nd't unlike the Labour Party, the Reform Party, or the Liberal Party. Tho Reform Party might make the most atrocious conditions of membership, but that*would be a matter for the Reform Party alone, and those who did not wish to conform to those "conditions could easily stand out. Bishop Cleary declares that "One of the conditions laid down is the form in which Ministers of the Church shall administer the sacraments"; and he "ocs on to say that

\JZE NE TEMERE DECREE

no longer exists as a separate legal | doctrine of the church; that it is contained in a modified form in the ;new Code of Canon or Chiircn Law that came into force in 1918. He further says : — "This new code regulates the conditions, under which two Catholics or a .Catholic and non-Catholic may exercise their ministry #f conferring upon each other a sacrament of the Church. . . . This law does not apply to non-Catho-lics, whether, baptised or unbaptiscd. . . . When such. non-Catholics marry among themselves, their marrittges are held to be perfectly good before her and in the sight of God." That seems ito me to be the whole thing in a nutshell. The Catholic Church, the Aingiican Church, the Presbyterian Church, and all other churches have a perfect right to make Avhatcver laws they desire for the government of their organisation so long as those laws do not conflict with the laws of the land. An Hon. Member: That is the trouble. ' Mr Holland: There is no. trouble about it at all. I say we have not heard, outside of Mr Howard Elliott, any demand whatever for a change in this repect. I wan* to come back to the point that I endeavoured to make in opening my address. Sir, the work-ing-men of this cov»ntry are linked .together in a bond of - ■ •

INDUSTRIAL AND POLITICAL SOLID ARITIT

to a greater extent than has ever been t&e case befpre," Their .industrial

strength and their political power is greater now than ever it has been in the days gone by — not nearly so great I as it should be, hut yet. something to be reckoned wifh to-day. This growing solidarity of the working-men challenges the vested interests of New Zealand, and I say deliberately that Mr Howard Elliott is in this matter the Hgent of the vested interests; that the work given him to do is the work of disrupting if h e can the forces of • labour by lying-, by misrepresentations, by the deliberate distortion of facts for, the purpose of setting men i,n. tho various industrial unions and the people of''-differcnt faiths against one another. His bad work is to generate religious hatreds, an dthus make for a raging storm of sectarian strife. If he should succeed in doing this, public attention would be diverted from the larger issues, aiid there need be no limit to the ramifications of the, exploiters. That is the real position. .1 want to speak directly, -to the members of this House, . but more particularly through this House to the men and women of the working-class movement outside, and therefore f will make my concluding remarks an appeal ,t,o the workers of whatever religion mot to allow .themselves to be set at one another's throats, by the lies and the reckless slandcrings of a man who ouglit not to be admitted into decent society; a man; whose word is not worth a snap of the fingers, a man who has never yet hesitated ito lie when- a lie suited his purpose. I _want to make my appeal to the working-men of this country to keep their bonds of solidarity intact, to respe'et one another's religious or non-religious opinions, and to claim for one anther the full right of reitglous liberty. The Labour movement does not ask what church a man belong to or whether he belongs to any church. It does ask him whether he will pledge himself to the industrial and political programmes of Labour. If his answer is Yes, the Labour movement wants him; if Ms answer is No, _ the Labour movement ■loes not want lifm. Sir, it would be a most deplorable thing if we w T cre to set the sectarian sinake once more rawling ail d hissing through the ranks >f. the people of this country by means < >f such a measure as is 'represented j in the amendment to which this reI'OTt refers, and I. appeal to members »£ this House not to let the amendment Proceed further.