FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 1887.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 88, 15 April 1887, Page 4

FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 1887.

The Divorce Extension Bill, to which we have made passing reference, has been passed in the popular chamber of the New South Wales Parliament by a majority of 57 votes against 19. This is highly significant of the advance of public opinion on the subject, when it js remembered that the same Chamber rejected the measure in the previouß session; but since the bill was first thrown out there has been a general election ; there has been full and free discussion of the subject: and the result is seen in a reversal of the former verdict. As the title of the bill implies, its chief object is to extend the grounds upon which divorce may be granted. For instance, sentence for a capital crime or for a felony liable to penal servitude for seven years or upwards, is made a ground of divorce; but it is provided that the respondent must not only have been sentenced, but must have been imprisoned under the sentence for at least twelve months. Desertion, cruelty, and habitual drunkenness are each of them dcclaicd sufficient ground of divorce. It is not proposed (as in the case of Scottish divorces for desertion) to forbid the future marriage of the deserting party. That we think is a mistake, becauso it places a premium upon desertion. This measure has been introduced and championed by Sir Alfred Stephen, the former Chief Justice of New South Wales, and is endorsed by the present Chief Justice. Its chief opponents have been the clergy. It is a noticeable fact that while Bishops and Archdeacons have stoutly assailed the measure with theological weapons, Sir Alfred Stephen has not disdained to argue the question on Scriptural grounds in the correspondence columns of the newspapers, and in the opinion of most people lias made good his case. Many petitions have been received in favour of the bill—one having as many as 4,800 signatures; and the clerical opponents, while also petitioning as hard as they can, are already taking refuge in the lofty declaration that counting heads is no way of settling moral questions. Their defeat is indeed pretty well assured ; for the Upper Chamber, which is a permanent body in the main, passed the bill last session, and is not at all likely to have changed its opinions a3 the result of the intervening discussion — more especially as the present bill has in some respects suffered modification from the measure passed by them last year. The debate on the second reading in the Legislative Council commenced on the 6th insfc., and was then adjourned for a fortnight, so that in a few days the fate of the measure will in all probability be decided. Legislation in New Zealand has already been proposed upon line 3 similar to those of Sir Alfred Stephen's bill, and there are indications that the Australasian marriage laws as a whole will soon approximate more closely the liberal j enactments in vogue in Holland, and j the Proteatfinfc States of Germany. I Such caaea ac that of Mrs Hall who is tied for life to the" villain who tried to murder her, and the frequent instances that are met with in the colonies of women who have been thrown entirely upon their own resources through the desertion ov systematic misconduct pi

brutish men, are. producing & general conviction that our laws relating to the marriage law stand in need of some modification in favour of women.