MARRIAGE LAW.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18018, 5 November 1920, Page 5

MARRIAGE LAW.

THE AMENDMENT BILL. FURTHER DISCUSSION BY PARLIAMENT. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON. Nov. 4. The House of Representatives this afternoon resumed the interrupted debate on the question that the report of the Marriage Amendment Bill Committee on the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Bill, together with the minutes of the proceedings and the evidence, do lie on the table and be printed. Mr Wright answered the personal attacks made in the House upon the Rev. Howard Elliott, stating that no less than 200 resolutions had been passed in various parts of the Dominion supporting the clause now before the House, and complimenting the Rev. Elliott on his campaign against the Ne Temere doctrine. In all, matters relating to the Marriage Act the State, not the church, must be supreme, and that was what the clause means. Mr Isitt said no church in the land approved of the clause before the House, because it limited their power to question unchastity. The time for the introduction of such legislation was inopportune, because there were in the Dominion at the present time between 140,000 and 150,000 Irish Roman Catholics, and everyone knew that owing to the doings going on in their native land their temperament was not normal, and this legislation was calculated to put a great strain upon their loyalty. The Minister of Justice had said this Bill was not aimed at any padticular church. but everyone knew it was aimed at the Roman Catholic Church, and be said it was simply deplorable that the Government should line itself up with the P.P.A.. which, though nominally political. was really religious. Where was the need for this legislation. There was already a remedy at civil law which might be exercised by a person whose chastity was assaulted, and he maintained that children are likewise protected. He deprecated the introduction of sectarianism into the politics of the Dominion, and declared that only the direst need should have induced the Government to introduce such an embittering measure. He asked the Premier to reconsider the position and consult with the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, who had promised not to unduly impose their doctrine upon the community, to see if there was not some peacable way cf solving this problem. For this purpose he moved that the report be referred back to the committee for further cnsideration. Dr Thacker contended that the Roman Catholic Church recognised that the civil law must be carried on in the way as at present by the issue of a marriage certificate, but that marriages should be validated in the presence of Almighty God uy the sacrament of holy matrimony. Mr Potter (Roskill) said that, contrary to Mr Isitt, he believed the present was the time for the introduction of this law, because the Ne Temere decree had ottered a challenge to the Crown and the validity of British law. Things that had been going on in New Zealand should not be allowed to continue. He read from the “Pink” Catechism of the Catholic Church to show that on the published statement of the church persons were not considered to be married unless married in the Catholic Church. The fact that the church authorities had said the publication would be withdrawn from sale did not alter the position. Catholics married to Protestants had asked him to support the Bill because of the insults shown to them and the things said of their children. Love, said Mr Potter, was at times stronger than religion, and people would marry outside their church, and if a legal ceremony was performed those people and their children should not afterwards have to be subject to Insults. Mi' Holland’s bitter attack on the Rev. Howard Elliott was not because of religious discord sown, as stated, but because the Rev. Elliott constantly told his audiences to keep to constitutional law and remain loyal. Mr Potter read letters and statements with the object of showing that the Catholic authorities endeavoured to induce Catholics married to Protestants to seek re-mar-riage by a priest. The statement of various clerics that, they would go to gaol rather than obey the new legislation was an attempt to put fear and intimidation into the Government. Mi' Harris also said he thought the law of New Zealand should be supreme, and that the people who desired to observe the laws of the land should be protected in that observance, and that was all that the Bill demanded. Mr Smith (Taranaki) said that the demand for this legislation was solely the result of the Rev, Howard Elliott’s agitation. There was no demand for it from the people. The P.P.A. was a most dangerous organisation, and was managed by a most dangerous man. He would vote against the clause because it did not originate in the House. It had not been asked for in the House, and was being forced on the House, by the Legislative Council. It was hasty legislation, which the Council was supposed to check. He stood for religious liberty, and would vote for religious liberty. Mr Veitch said a study of the evidence had convinced him that some change in the law was necessary to fortify the rights of the State, but he thought the present, was not the most opportune time tn make that change. More could be done by tactful negotiation than by this class of legislation. Mr Savage said that as a member of the committee that took the evidence on this question, he wished to dissociate himself from the report of the committee. The value of the evidence given before the committee

depended to a great extent on the credibility of the witness. The bulk of the evidence appeared to be given by the Rev. Elliott, and he proceeded to quote references to the Rev. Elliott to show that his evidence was unworthy of credence. Tht*’ debate was interrupted by the 3.30 adjournment. On the House resuming Mr Fraser urged members to pause before doing anything that would arouse religious strife. He was not concerned with the churches’ differences on theology, but if ever occasion aroso when any church attempted to interfere with the functions of the State he would be found fighting on the side of the State. If any action was needed regarding marriage (which in the present case, ho said, was not shown to he necessary), then they should face it courageouly nnd make civil marriage compulsory, allowing the parties to celebrate any religious phase of the ceremony or sacrament according to the dictates of their particular faith. If any lesson was to be learned from the religious upheavals of the past it was the need for a spirit of toleration. ’mil recently New Zealand had been free from religious feeling. The sectarian ferment that had lately arisen would die out, and he believed the people would then again live in amity. No body of men in the country had any right to interfere, as was proposed, with the doctrines of any church in the land. ■ Mr Wright said he would vote against the amendment of the clause to which objection had been taken, provided there was protection, which at present was lacking, for persons in certain circumstances. He assed if any church was justilied in passing an edict that was contrary to the law of the land. Members had said there was no demand for the amendment of the law now suggested, but Mr Wright said the Presbyterian Church several pears ago urged action against ihe promulgation ot the Ne Temere decree in New Zealand, but nothing was being done. No Protestant church, however, no matter how much it. objected to certain provisions of the existing law, had ever questioned the full validity ot a marriage contracted under that law. What the objecting churches did do was to resolve to get such provisions altered. So far as the penalty for the offence against the law was concerned, he thought it need not. involve a fine. The removal ot the offending clergyman’s name from . register would have been sufficient punishment. Mr Atmore deplored the irruption of this disturbing question in a young country like New Zealand when men should be concentrating their united efforts on effacing the disastrous effects of the recent war. He agreed that the daw of the land must be superior to the religious law of any section of the people, but so long as a church does not impugn the validity of civil marriage tn State had no right to interfere with the church’s doctrines in the matter ot the sacramental character of marriage. Mr Bartram considered the proposed legislation was a reflection on our civilisation. He believed the Bill was an insidious attempt to smash the solidarity of the Labour Party. There had been no demand for any amendment of the law as it stood. Mr Lysnar said he had been asked a question on this subject during the election, and had replied that so long as it did not run counter to the law of the land he would not interfere with the doctrinal teaching of any church on the matter of marriage, but if any church infringed the law of the land then acton must be taken. The Roman Catholic authorities stated that it. was already their intention to modify the section of the catechism regarding the sacrament of marriage so that it would not clash with Statute law. If they did this then they could have no well founded objection to the provisions of the Bill under discussion. His position was that a wrong existed and it was therefore the duty of members to vote for a remedy. Mr Edie, in supporting Mr Isitt's amendment, said he was prepared to go on the public platform and justify his vote. He thought it would be a good thing if the measure was held over till next session, when the feelir.gs of the people might have regained equilibrium. Mr Masters said he had not thought much about this matter, and therefore he was prepared io be guided by others who had given it thought. So far as he could see, churches representing 79.73 per cent, of the people were against It, and therefore he was against it. Mr Hamilton (Awarua) said the source of all this sectarian bitterness was due to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Federation, which held sway some years ago. So long as it was allowed to do as it pleased everything was all right, but as soon as it was opposed then they were met with the cry of sectarian bitterness. He objected (o any church taking up the attitude that if people were not married according to its particular tenets they were not legally married. After midnight the debate was carried on by Messrs Holland, Sullivan, Howard, and Parry, who supported Mr Isitt’s ami idment. and by Messrs Dickson (Parnell) and McLeod, who opposed it. At 1.25 a division was taken on Mr Isitt’s amendment, which was rejected by 44 to 25. Mr Downie Stewart was replying when the telegraph office closed. (Left sitting.)