MARRIAGE BILL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16260, 29 October 1920, Page 6

MARRIAGE BILL.

A CONTROVERSIAL POINT, SLELECT CO-MJUTTEE’S REPORT. [From Our Correspondent.] WELLING!ON, October 28. Tho Select Committee of the House of llopreßentntiyes, appointed to consider tho Marriage Act Amendment Bill reported to-day, recommending that the House should agree with the amendments made in tho Bill by the Legislative Council, by the insertion of new clauses 3a and 6, with tho exception of, words “ imprisonment for ormyear” in rile new clause providing ior punishment of persons who impugn tho validity of civil marriages. Mr W. Doivnio Stewart, ctiairman of the committee, outlined the history of the Bill, pointing out that when it originated in the Hohse it was a purely departmental measure of no groat importance. Glauses had been added in. the Legislative Council dealing with certain Charges made regarding the questioning of tho validity of marriages. W hen the amendments were referred to the committee of ivhich he was cliairman, resolutions began ,to pile in, showing that there was great diversity of opinion between tho denominations, and also, Mn some cases, between persons in the same denominator!. _ An instance was quoted to the committee, of what was called " double marriage” which occurred ix. 1908. Although tho authorities of tho Roman Catholic Church had said they did not desire to give evidence the committee thought it its duty to notify them of what had come to its noticb. He communicated with Archbishop O’Shea and gave him the substance of this evidence. The-committee had a reply fiom him and from Bishop Cleary which would appear in the evidence! there was also evidence from the Regis-trar-General regarding marriages performed as a civilian contract and then performed in a church. The committee had asked the opinion of tho SolicitorGeneral as to the effect of tho new clauses inserted in the Bill hv tho Legislative Council, in view of tho opinion given by Sir John Findlay and Mr M. Myers. In the light of this opinion from the Solicitor-General the committee considered it would hot be leasiblo to adopt the amendments suggestedl John' Findlay and Mr Myers. To do so would throw too great an onus on tho prosecution in any proceeding. They then considered the feasibility of inserting some words which would allay the apprehension of the churches as to the effect of certain clauses in interfering with liberty to teach certain doctrines or enforce certain discipline, and thev came to tho conclusion that it would not ho practicable r 0 insert words which would carry out that object without whittling away the effect of the clause to such an extent as to make it too vague and unsatisfactory to bo of use. Thev, therefore decided to allow the clause to stand, merely confining themselves to cutting out the provision for imprisonment to one of penalties. Mr Holland: How can you collect a fine without imprisonment? Mr Stewart: It might become neces--Bar- hut it would he voluntary. irm - Hol,and : Something like M’SwmeyP A Member: We don’t want to make martyrs of them. Mr Stewart went on to say that it did not < appear to the committee that m practice any injustice would be done to religious denominations, and it-was extremely unlikely, assuming that the tears of the churches were well founded, that any Government would be sufficiently _keen to prosecute ns to search closely into Church doctrine or practice for the purpose of prosecution. If the clause appeared in practice to give use to any difficulty it could be amended. In the meantime he thought it set. forth in simple and plain language what tho man in the street could understand, and did not appear to the committee to go beyond a fair statement of what ought to be tho law. If this did not prove to be satisfactory then, speaking for himself, he believed the only solution would be to adopt the practice, which the authorities of some churches had suggested, and that was the Continontax system of making a civil marriage the only marriage officially recognised by the State, leaving the parties to go through whatever religious ceremony they liked subsequently. Under such a system no man could be uncertain whether he was or was not married He did not think that public opinion was ripe for such a reform at present, but it might be as the controversy developed. Finally, the chairman praised the members of the committee for their mutual tolerance in discussing the questions. OPPOSITION LEADER’S OPINION. Mr Milford prefaced his remarks with the statement that he intended to make his position perfectly clear. In his opinion this measure was a sad echo of the lost election fight, with all its sectarian bitterness. In his opinion the person at the back of it was Howard Elliott. In explaining tlio present law he shmved that any woman whose chastity was impugned could take civil action for unlimited damages, while under the proposed law the limit was a fine of £IOO. Ho could hardly understand why the provision for imprisonment had been dropped. There was a lot of industrial trouble ahead of tho country, and it was of the utmost importance that anything which would tend to clause sectarian bitterness should be avoided. England had not found it necessary to introduce any such legislation. Ho spoke as a Protestant,, and it was interesting to note the attitude of the lenders, of tho Anglican Church from Auckland, to tho Bluff, who had opposed the measure. Tlio leaders of the Roman Catholic Church had opposed it, and had affirmed their intention of suffering penalties rather than submit to curtailment of what they held-to be a branch of their religious liberties. If the Bill wore passed it would result in unending strife, and lie was stronriy opposed to it. ‘ ANOTHER LAWYER’S VIEW. Tho Minister of Justice (the Hon E. P. Lee) said tho law regarding actions for slander and libel dealt with by Mr Wilford referred only to man' and woman, but not to children. The amendment clause’was very simple. It set out that no person should question tho sufficiency of civil marriage or the legitimacy of the children of such marriage. ,tt was general in application and not directed against any particular denomination. Mr Holland regretted that the measure had been brought before Parliament. There had been no public demand for it. It was significant that it came from the Legislative Council, whose members were beyond reach of public feeling. About Mav last a deputation waited upon the Prime 1 Minister.in regard to certain railway privileges enjoyed by teachers in Roman Catholic schools. In its issue of June 10 tho “Nation.” the official organ of Howard Elliott, reporting upon tho deputation, said: “A deputation of a more private character waited upon tho Prime Minister and was cordially received. Matters of considerable importance -were touched upon and doubtless, tho result will be made apparent in future,” No man declared Mr Holland, was more reckless in his statements; than Mr Howard Elliott, whom he regarded as a representative of vested interests in an attempt to disrupt the solidarity 0 f organised Labour. Mr Holland' appealed to the working men of tho countrv to preserve their integrity in face of'this insidious attempt hv capitalists to divide them by means of sectarian strife. PRIME MINISTER ANSWERS ALLEGATIONS Mr Massey said that ho would not have spoken had it not been for the reference by Mr Holland to himself and the deputation. That member had also said that tho measure was calculated to stir up sectarian bitterness. Ho wanted to reply that no speech had over been heard within the four walls of the Hotloo more likely to stir

up sectarian bitterness than the speech or the honourable member Mr Massey said that ho had never, during the whole course of his career, been guilty of religious intolerance. Ho was a Presbyterian (Hear, hear). Mr Holland; Not n very good one. I m afraid (Laughter). Mr Massey: -'Perhaps not. but it does not matter to Parliament whether I am or not.” He went 9 n . say that his ancestors bad left Scotland because of religions persecution. _ As for the alleged privnte deputation, he had almost forgotten it, but he had called it to mind. It came some time before the marriage question was raised in the Upper House, and included the president of the Protestant Political Association and Mr Howard Elliott. He welcomed all deputations so long aC they came on’ public business, ana they always came by the light of day through the front door. Whether they wore reported or not ho left to the deputations to decide. He regarded as singular that they dealt chiefly w-itli suggestions to reduce the cost of living. It was said that the Presbyterian -Church Was opposed to the clause, but although ho did not know its Official opinion, lie could say positively that Presbyterians believed that when marriage was properly celebrated by a minister of a Christian Church, no matter of what sect, the Presbyterian regarded it as a legal marriage, not only from the point of view of the Church but of the State, and no good Presbyterian would accuse the parties of adultery or the children of illegitimacy. . NOT AN ELECTION ECHO. "I cannot possibly agree that it is an echo of the last election fight,” continued Mr Massey. "I don’t suppose there was a man in New Zealand who took a more prominent, part in the elections, and. nobody ever hinted at this question.” Mr Parry: What about the thousand leaflets dealing with the No Temero decree ? Mr Massey: “If they were issued I never saw them. I had enough leaflets of my own to deal with. I don’t believe for a moment that this is an echo of the last election, and I hope when wo get to next election we shall be able to settle our differences without fighting it out on sectarian issues.” The Prime Minister pointed out that although the present law provided against charging a woman with unchastity there was no punishment for making a similar charge against a man. The new clauses would cover cases of mixed marriages. It was an unpleasant duty, but if a duty came along one had to face it. “ The proper way to settle this difficulty,” he said, “ would be to provide that only civil marriages should be registered by the State, and _ I would not have the slightest hesitation in supporting/!;. If a man or woman Wjint a religious ceremony there should be nothing to prevent them if they think it strengthens their marriage. I consider it my duty to support these clauses, hut I am not going to interfere with any member of the House, or bring the slightest influence to bear upon his Vote, because it is not a party question.” THE PARTY QUESTION. Mr M’Callum took up the challenge that it was not a party measure. The committee set up to consider the measure, he said, was a party one, on the basis of seven to five, and every vote was a party one. He attacked Mr Howard Elliott, criticising him as ‘‘a paid parasite and public mischief maker, a disgrace to the denomination to which ho belonged, 7 * ond declared he was the instigator of the Bill. Regret was expressed by Mr Wright for the attack made against a certain gentleman by members under cover of nrivileg© of the House. Tho members for Bullcr and Wairau had abused their privileges, and he challenged them to repeat their remarks in the face of the men they slandered. Tho discussion was interrupted by the adjournment, but will be renewed at a further sitting. SOLICITOR-GENERAL ON THE CLAUSE. [From Our Correspondent.! WELLINGTON, October 23. The Solicitor-General, in expressing his opinion us to the legal effect of tho new clause, saidi “ if it became law in Us present form tho Roman Catholic Church will still lie at liberty to promulgate its doctrine that marriage of a Catholic celebrated otherwise before a priest of the Catholic Church is not a sacrament, but that the Church will he debarred from promulgating declarations that sacramental celebration is essential to tho validity pf marriage, dr that marriages entered into without such a sacramental celebration are in any respect invalid ns marriages,_ and will bo also debarred from alleging that persons so mamed are living together in adultery and that their issue is illegitimate.” In his opinion that is the gfleet of the new clause and he sees no reason to believe that a court of law would internet it otherwise. He continues; “Tho effect, of the amendments suggested by two counsels, Sir John Findlay and Mr Myers, who have advised Archbishop O’Shea, would, in my judgment, be to frustrate the object of the proposed legislation as embodied in the now clause referred to.”