The Press. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1888.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7194, 2 November 1888, Page 4

The Press. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1888.

L? —b coold suppoeo it poaeiblethift words of ours could influence the New Sooth Wales Legislature we aho—d certainly beg them to reconsider the matter before committing themselves to a conflict with the Home authorities' upon so unhappy a subject as their proposed Divorce Bill. We are no* saying, be it observed, that no measure of the kind can possibly be allowed to pass. We are as sensible, we believe, a_ any of our readers of the diffieulfc—J attending the present state of the la* But the whole subject, deal with i> how you will, is replete with diffi* oulty. A wrong solution is calculated to lead to most serious evil, not to New South Wales only, but to all the Australasian oolonierj and unless there is given to this qoe , tion far more consideration than Vβ can find it to have received at the hands of the legislators of New South Wales we fear that the solution Jβ oaif too likely to be a wrong one, and te bring about social evils such as Wβ confess alarm us not a little. In OOT judgment a question like that « divorce ought to be dealt with by • Conferenoe of as high character at e» be drawn together from all theoolome of Australasia, and whatever ia.dooe ought to be the result of their oWWtive, if not unanimous, opinion, r ? Wβ do not speak without great warrant. Our American cousins i— w taken up the matter precisely on Wβ linea occupied by our sister coloeyThey have made it, not the subject w legislation by the Legislature of tM Uniou, but they have left it t o 6** Sute iv the matter of divorce to ,»> that which was right in its own ey* The result has been to produce • lamentable laxity in regard to tW sacrednesa of the marriage tie, and • conviction has for some time beeß growing in intensity that it will j* necessary for the Union to take tM matter in hand for itself, undo •*» that has been done, and place tM divorce question upon at least safer, if not a satisfactory Among the earliest of the States of tM Uuion to increase the facilities » divorce was the State of Connecticut Shortly before the commencement « the half century this State P B ®**" law adding two more to the rtCo *' nised causes of divorce. Theee JjW - "habitual intemperance" and. «* tolerable cruelty," and it wiU «* thought by many that there ».""fj to be said in favor of these No doubt there is, but the miscbiet« it ia that the same line of argument PJ which these additions are justified#>-» include other additions not So found the Legislature of Connecttco* Within six years there were *ay» the following:—lmprisonment lo */J£ any infamous crime involving » _ . tion of conjugal duty, and pun»&M»

by imprisonment; and then this, which we must give in terms of the Act—"Any such misconduct of the other party as permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner, and defeats the purposes of the mamage relation." A clause of this kind may bethought to speak for itself, l&e divorcee of the State of Connecticut multiplied rapidly. *VJI «£ fl J™ 94 in the year in which the Act wa. passed, to 129 next year, 299 a few years later, and during the fifteen years ending in 1879 they averaged 446 annually. Of every ten marriages one terminated in a divorce. Oar readers will not be surprised to learn that tbe clause we have quoted— the "Omnibus clause" as it was familiarly called —has since been repealed. But this is unfortunately very far from being all. We bave spoken only of the State of Connecticut. Its example swept like a wave over the other States of the Union. The old rule was that no causes of divorce were allowed except adultery and desertion. Very different has the case become siuce. "One cause after mother has been added, until now the way% that lead out of wedlock are numerous and broad, and many there •be who find them." In Massachusetts—not an extreme case— the causes have been increased to nine. The effect is as might be expected. The divorces, speaking of the States generally, may be said to have ranged at from one in eleven to one in fourteen of tbe marriages celebrated. We shall be told, perhaps, that no one proposes to go this length, that the New South Wales measure in particular is of a studiously moderate character, and that nothing beyond it has been proposed. We entirely accept ihe statement for the present; but who shall assure us for the future ? Nothing is so easy, unfortunately, when once men set about it as to find reasons for reasons for the addition of one more cause of divorce a 9 good as thoae which -were considered sufficient for the addition of the last. Some well meaning man is familiar with a case in his neighborhood in which a woman has Buffered many things at the hands of a drunken or cruel or improvident husband. It seems to him a grievous thing that a good woman should be tied to a worthless man. His brother legislators are easily persuaded to agree with him, and one more cause of divorce is added to the roll. The truth is, it must *be so upon the basis upon which all these discussions are allowed to proceed. Marriage is regarded as a contract, and as a contract only; and upon this principle it is obviously impossible to stop logically anywhere short of the conclusion that when both parties to the contract are agreed in the desire to annul it they ought to be allowed to do so. It is only when due regard is given to the two other im portant elements in the question, viz., the claims of the family which the married couple have brought into -existence, and the public interest in the preservation of public morality, that we occupy cafe ground in dealing with it. Any law which increases so enormously, as we have Been done by the laws of tbe States of the Union, the practice of divorce offends against the last of these conditions, and any which ignores the interests of the children, or indeed does not give them the first place in ite consideration, offends against the first. The problem to be solved is to ascer-; tain the conditions under which mercy, | or if you will, justice, to oue party to ' the contract can be made to consist' with full justice to the family, and with adequate guarantees in regard to public morality. This is a solution in which, not New South Wales only, but all the colonies of Australasia have a tommon interest. They have a just claim upon the Legislature of Now Sooth Wales not to persist in forcing the matter upon the authorities at Home until the whole subject has been deliberated upon and decided by a confer«nce representing them all