L—7.

10

[TT. ELLIOTT.

Revision Committee of the Legislative Council that that catechism would be withdrawn, it is still on sale both here and in Auckland. The Chairman : They say they decided on this alteration twelve months ago ?— They say so ; but the fact is that here is the catechism (which could have been reprinted any time within a week as a whole) mutilated, torn asunder, four pages reprinted, and then restapled and issued under another cover. Obviously it must be to blind the members of the Legislature. Obviously it is not a serious and genuine attempt to deal with the position, but it is simply something to get past the difficulty which has been raised. Mr. Harris : Your idea is that the alteration was not contemplated ?—I submit that the whole of the facts in connection with the second catechism show that there was nothing of the kind contemplated ; and the fact of the original catechism not being withdrawn, and being still on sale after the promise made and after the second one was circulated, proves that the whole thing was not substantially honest. And not only so, but if they do withdraw this catechism now, there are still the teachings of their authoritative writers or standard works, and not only here in New Zealand but throughout the whole of the British Empire. It is obviously an attempt to escape from anything in the way of a penalty, and from the dread of legislative action, which is now before their eyes. What is a " sacrament " according to the Roman Catholic Church ?— Hon. Mr. Lee: The catechism here states, "A. sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, ordained by Jesus Christ, by which grace is given to our souls." Friday, 22nd October, 1920. The Rev. Robert Wood examined. The Chairman : Mr. Wood, I have explained to the Committee a, misunderstanding that arose about your attendance. From your first letter I assumed that the only point upon, which you wished to give evidence was in connection with your statements in the Upper House, and, as the Committee had decided that they did not want to open up that question again, it was a day or two before 1 notified you. It did not occur to mo that there was anything else on which you wanted to give evidence. However, as there was an opportunity of calling a meeting to-day I sent you notice in order to let you make a statement if there is any point you wish to discuss with the Committee. The; Committee had really finished its proceedings, but other letters came in, and as the Committee had to consider these a, further notice was sent to you, and I hope you will understand there was a misunderstanding on the former occasion, and that no discourtesy was intended. Rev. Mr. Wood : I may say the only notification I got of any of these meetings was last Friday, when it reached me by post about the time you commenced your meeting. I appeared before the Committee of the Legislative Council in my individual capacity. There was an invitation given by Sir Francis Bell, and I responded to that invitation. I was at a very considerable disadvantage, because I had no official standing, and I was asked by a member of the Committee, if I represented the Presbyterian Church. I could only say I did not. I was there to report the decision and the attitude of the Church, and I had not had time to ask for a commission to represent the Church. To-day my position is different. The General AsjSe.mbly's committee that has charge of subjects such as you are discussing has formally commissioned me to represent the committee, and through representing the committee to represent the Presbyterian Church. When they heard your Committee had been set up I was commissioned to represent the Church, and I sent on a formal commission to the Hon. Mr. Lee, Minister of Justice. I received a letter from Mr. Hunter, of Oamaru, the convener of the committee, asking me to appear in the interests of the Church, and to support the demand of the Church made in 1911, which is the request of the Presbyterian Church to-day. That is my position. If I have an opportunity —it is for you to rule whether the opportunity may be given to me—l should like to do three things. In the first place, I should like to report to you the request of the Presbyterian Church made in 1911 through, its General Assembly to the Ward Government. That request stands to-day. It is the attitude of our Church to-day. Hon; Mr. Anderson: What is the attitude ?—I am outlining what I would like to say. I have documents in my bag to show the attitude of the Church. Hon. Mr. L,ee : What was the request: can you put it concisely ?—That the Ward Government should protect the social interests of non-Roman-Catholics affected by the Ne temere decree. That, in short, was the request. The Chairman : You put that in evidence in the Upper House ? —I reported that. In the second place, I have listened to statements made on the public: platform with regard to the discipline and practice of the Presbyterian Church respecting marriage. This matter, I understand, is coming before the House of Representatives. The other Sunday night, at a crowded meeting, a member of the House of Representatives quoted as unimpeachable evidence that could not be challenged statements to the effect that the Presbyterian Church had its Ne temere decree of almost as, or of a more, malignant character than the decrees of other Churches. He quoted that as unimpeachable evidence, and I can only say the whole thing is a tissue of misrepresentation. The Presbyterian Church is suffering through these erroneous statements being made with regard to its practice respecting marriage. In the third, place, some years ago I found a strange practice obtaining in the Registry Office. Certificates were being issued by Registrars to parties already married to be married again. The Presbyterian Church in 1911 expressed its disapproval of that condition of things. Hon. Mr. Lee : That is absolutely illegal ? —I can lay on the table here letters from the RegistrarGeneral in support of that practice, and saying Hon. Mr. Anderson: But is it done now ? —I cannot say, but it was done at that time. I have no reason to believe there is any change.