" AMICUS " ON LAW AND SCEIPTURE.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVII, Issue 4236, 13 March 1871, Page 3

" AMICUS " ON LAW AND SCEIPTURE.

TO THE EDITOR. Dear Sir, — I am glad that at last I have met -with a man who can agree with a lady without being contemptuous, discourteous, or illogical. I find generally that my opponents persist in considering me a rabid revolutionist. All my protestations to the contrary, all that I have written with respect to the responsibilities, duties, and obligations of wives, all this is utterly disregarded and passed over, and I am treated as though I advocated sochl rebellion on the part of women. Nothing can be more unjust or further from the truth. My sole objection to the laws as affecting the doctrine of wifely obedience is, that the jurisdiction presses very unfairly on the wives of men who are not governed by moral or religious obligations. Where both parties in the marriage contract are governed by the same moral and religious principles, I can see no reason why the wife should refuse implicit obedience in all things important. Of course she should obey ; and if there were a difference of opinion, and she could not persuade him, she should yield to him, and, if she did not, she would find all good women against her. The best type of women, those whose characters are most',worthy of respect, do this easily and willingly, and. find a pleasure in sacrificing their will to their love. It is alike their duty and their pleasure, and they would do it no matter what the laws might be. But Ido object to the powers given by the law. They press with cruel hardness on many women, and there is no escape, no redress except through the sadly public and disgraceful door of the Police Court. Most women would prefer to endure martyrdom, and many do endure martyrdom, before they can make up their minds to take their sorrows there. There are bad, silly, (unreasonable, and frivolous women, alas, yes; but men are not before us in that respect. I question if the love of dress and display is so costly a love as the passion for drink and billiards, and even deeper vices. I cannot but think that laws want equalising. The power of men is too excessive. They can be steeped in vice with out forfeiting power or social standing. The basest of them have almost unlimited jurisdiction over the faLe of their wives and families, and unless money is tied up from them, as from a felon, they have unlimited power <.vjr the property, in which surely ail should have a share. I do hope that lam a sincere nn-1 humble-minded. Christian woman, and t 'itt I am not dealing presumptuously uifch Holy Writ when I say that I cannot believe our Heavenly Father ever meant that there should be such a cruel inequality between men and women. Ido think that any balance of power given to, mea vraa given to tiwm. to, vm fe^ qu*