THE MARRIAGE LAWS.
THE AMENDING BILL. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 5. i After the telegraph office closed/ |Mr Stewart replied to the debate on I the question that the report of the ! committee on the Marriage Amendment Bill do lie on the table. He said the only questions the House had decided were whether certain causes of mischief existed in the community, and whether the amendment proposed in the Bill was a remedy for that mischief. One ! speaker in the debate had questioned j the credibility of Mr Howard Eli lioit as a witness, but he wished to ■ point out that the chief evidence I given before the Parliamentary ComI mittee was documentary evidence, which was beyond controversy. He further questioned the accuracy of some statements made that all churches were against the clause. That was not so, because many of the churches had said they believed there was mischief afoot, and they asked that this mischief should be corrected, but at the same time they also asked that their religious liberty be preserved and protected. How that was to be done they had not demonstrated to the committee. It had been asserted that the Presbyterian Church was against the clause. All he knew was that they had before the committee a witness who officially represented that Church, and who declared he wanted the clause and wanted it unaltered. Another branch of the Presbyterian I Church had asked the committee to adopt the Italian penal code. Compared with that code their clause was i milk and water. The question had i been asked, why had this matter ; been raised? Personally he knew I nothing of the alleged bargain be-1 tween the P.P.A. and the Reform Party. He could only suppose the Premier had satisfied himself by evidence or other means that there was some need for such legislatiou, as he could not understand any Minister proceeding with such a controversial subject unless he was satisfied it was necessary. The Premier must have been satisfied that mischief existed, and that those suffering under it were entitled to some protection. The matter had been carefully considered by the committee, who tried to come to an impartial conclusion, and the clause was the result. If the clause was found unfair or unworkable, it could be amended next year, but he thought it better to settie the controversy now | than have it hanging over their I heads. The report was then laid on the table. The Hon. E. P. Lee moved that the ■ amendment made by th e Legislative ( Council be agreed to, with the ex- j ceptiou of the words “imprisonment for one year” in sub-section 1. clause I 6. This, he said, would limit the ; punishment for an offence under i the clause to a fine. __ This was agreed to. Mr Holland then moved to delete from subsection A the words, “truly and sufficiently,” which he said meant that, any person would be liable who implied that any persons lawfuly married were not married. H e also moved to strike out from | sub-section B the word “true,” which would make the penalty apply in the case of an application that the issue of a lawful marriage was born out of wedlock. These proposed amendments were on a division rejected by 43 to 24. Messrs Stewart, Crafgie, and Lee were appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the Council’s amendment. The House rose at 2.28 till noon ] on Monday. , The following is the division list • on Mr Isltt’s amendment:— ; For the amendment (25) —Atmore, Bartram, Edie, Forbes, Fraser, , Holland. Horn, Howard. Isitt, Jennings. McCallum, McCombs. Masters, Parry. Poland, Savage, Seddon. Sidey, R. W. Smith, S. G. Smith, Sullivan, Veitch, Wilford, Williams, and Witty. Against, the amendment (44) Messrs Anderson, Bitchener, Bollard, Burnett, Coates, Craigie, Dickson, I (Chalmers), Dickson (Parnell), Field. Guthrie, Hamilton (Awarua), Hamilton (Wallace), Hanan. Harris, Hawken, Kerries, Hockley, Hudson, Hunter, Jones. Kellett, Lee, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, McNicol, Malcolm, Massey, Mitchell, E. K. Newman. E. Newman, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Powdrell. Reed, R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Statham, Stewart. Sykes, Wright, and Young.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19201106.2.62
Bibliographic details
Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18019, 6 November 1920, Page 8
Word Count
684THE MARRIAGE LAWS. Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18019, 6 November 1920, Page 8
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the Wanganui Chronicle. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.