THE MARRIAGE LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17614, 29 October 1920, Page 6

THE MARRIAGE LAW.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE. AMENDMENTS BY COUNCIL. ACCEPTANCE RECOMMENDED. REDUCTION OF PENALTY. [BY TELEGRAPH. ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Thursday. In the House of Representatives to-day, Mr. W. Downie Stewart presented the report of the Committee on the Marriage Law Amendment Bill as follows — 14 I am directed to report that the committee recommends that the . House agree with the amendments made in Bill by the Legislative Council by inserting new clauses 3a and 6,. with the exception of the words, ' imprisonment for one year' in the new clauiie 6." Mr. Stewart traced the progress «of the Bill, and how the clause under discussion came to be inserted in another place. The committer 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." Although the Roman Catholic Church authorities did not give evidence before 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 this would 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 issue authorisations for second religious marriages after a legal ceremony had ready been performed. The committee had to consider 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 Findlav. They then considered the feasibility of inserting some words that would allay the fears of certain Church people, but concluded they could not do this without whittling away the present provisions protecting the legality of marriage. They decided that the clause should stand, with the exception that they cut out imprisonment, and made the punishment to be by fine only. It did not appear that the fears of Church people were well founded, but he did net think the Government would be anxious to inquire too closely into 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 onlv one recognised as legal, as was the case on the Continent.

Provisions of Present Law. „-\ lr - T - M. Wilford (Hutt) said the statute Uook already provided penalties against any persons making allegations of the choiacter complained of by those supporting this Bill, but he could not understand why the committee had struck out imprisonment as a punishment for an allegation of unchastity in marriage. He considered such an allegation deserved the severest punishment and nothing less than imprisonment should be imposed. He did not, however, see the necessity for the Bill at all. The country was facing difficulties of a serious character, and it should be their endeavour to teach religious tolerance. He quoted the opinions of Church leaders in opposition to the clause and declared he* would oppose it to the end. > ttt^ 6 ,^ on - Lee agreed with Mr. \\ llford that other laws provided for offences of the character referred to. This Being so, Mr. Lee said he could not see why this duplication should be objected to. But children must be considered and this Bill did that. The law was net directed against any particular. Church, but it- was necessary that provision should be made so that no section could come out and openly question the validity ojf a marriage contracted under the laws of the country.

Statement by Mr. Massey. The Prime Minister refuted a statement made by the member for Buller that sectarian bitterness wis at the root of the proposed legislation. x So far as Mr. Holland s references to the danger of arousing serious popular differences were concerned, he 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 Scotland to escape religious intolerance. In all the years of his association with politics in New Zealand it could not be said he had ever been guilty of an intolerant action. He had nothing to do with bringing this Bill before Parliamei& Referring to mixed marriages', Mr. Massey said the clause was intended to deal with these by giving protection to the children of such unions 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 would vote for the clause. Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau) challenged Mr. Massey's statement that the matter was not one of party. He characterised the Bill as the result of the agitation by Howard Elliott.

Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) declared the Bill necessary as a protection to certain people. He challenged Messrs. Holland and McCallum to repeat certain statements concerning Mr. Elliott outside Parliament.

The discussion was interrupted by the dinner adjournment.

THE LEGAL ASPECT. SOLICITOR-GENERAL'S OPINION. [BY TELEGBAPH. SPECIAL BEPOBTEB.] WELLINGTON. Thursday. The debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives this afternoon was remarkable mainly for two speeches, one by Mr. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) and the other by Mr. McCallum (Wairau), each of whom, but especially Mr. Holland, used very strong language in regard to the Rev. Howard Elliot. The Prime Minister, referring to these speeches, said they were just the kind of speeches that would inflame sectarian prejudices. Mr. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) strongly condemned these speeches, and said the members had made, under cover of privilege in the House, statements about Mr. Howard Elliot that they would not dare to make outside. > Mr. Downie Stewart (Dunedin West), who was chairman of the committee that reported on the Bill, gave a reasoned and dispassionate account of the deliberations and decision of the committee. He read the opinion of the Solicitor-General, Mr. W. C. MacGregor, on the points that had been referred to him. Mr. MacGregor, giving his opinion on the new clause added to the Bill in the Legislative Council, stated: "If the new clause becomes law in its present form the Roman Catholic Church will still be at 'liberty to promulgate its doctrine that the marriage of a Catholic, celebrated other than before a priest of the Catholic Church, is not a sacrament, but that Church will be debarred from promulgating declarations that sacramental celebration is essential to the validity of a marriage or that marriages entered into without such a sacramental celebration are in any respect invalid as marriages. It vgill be also debarred from alleging that persons so married are living together in adultery, or that their issue is illegitimate. In my opinion that is the effect of the new clause and I fee no reason to believe that a Court of law would, interpret it otherwise.'" -

In regard to the joint opinion toy Sir John Findlav and Air. Myers, forwarded by Archbishop O'Shea, the Solicitor-Gen-eral expressed the following opinion: — The effect of the amendments suggested y .'J 16 two counse l. who have advised the archbishop would, in my judgment, be to frustrate the object of the proposed legislation as embodied in the new clause above referred tow"