CURRENT TOPICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11235, 5 April 1897, Page 5

CURRENT TOPICS.

MAEEIAGE AND •* POSSESSION.”

. The Women’s Convention, and more especially its resolutions on the subject of the marriage laws, have been the .subject of

discussion in many circles, and diverse opinions have been expressed regarding the new doctrine of sex equality as expounded by some members of the National Council of Women. Even the pulpit has , been, constrained to take ■ notice of thedebate on the marriage question. At St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church yesterday, , the Eev Gordon Webster took occasion, without specifically mentioning the recent Convention, to vigorously combat the socalled “advanced’’view of the true nature of the marriage relation. Basing his remarks upon the story of the marriage of Euth. and Boaz, the preacher pointed out that the doctrine of “possession,” so abhorrent to some women of to-day, was stated by Boaz in all its naked hideousnefis when he said: “Moreover, Euth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife.” There was no doubt that, compared with the civilised Customs of to-day, there was something , barbarous about the old Jewish law that denied women all power of living independently, and looked upon widows as mere chattels to be disposed of along with the land of their deceased husbands; but that law was an advance upon heathen practices, and was designed for the protection of ■women no less than for keeping up the population of a small country beset by many enemies. The necessities of the time justified what was objectionable in the law. In the case of Euth, despite the feminine wiles employed to capture Boaz as her husband, and despite the cruel and cast-iron law that gave her no choice, there ■were evidences that the marriage was one that engaged the affections of both parties to it; and that being so, there was no more than a theoretical ownership of the wife by'the husband. How many women of today, enjoying all the freedom and dignity conferred upon them by Christian civilisation and without Euth’s excuse of terrible poverty, resort to artifices to obtain husbands, and truly sell themselves in order to obtain wealth or social position! Unequivocally, though perhaps not in so many words, the reverend gentleman held it was not for women to inveigh against the “possession” theory in our marriage laws, while so many of their sex proved thornselves unable to live up to the privileges they already enjoy, by debasing the union of souls * into a mere sordid arrangement.

THE CHRISTIAN THEORY.

Mr Webster held that the honourable position now occupied by women in society the liberty, independence, individuality

and dignity enjoyed by them—is due to Christian teaching. There is not in the Christian conception of marriage, any reason for objecting to the term “ possession ” In every true marriage the man and -wife .become the property of each other until death parts them. Christianity had elevated the idea of marriage from a tie formed for the benefit of the family, or the State,intoaunion of souls, made lasting by spiritual sympathies and conducive to the highest mutual benefit. After descanting upon the desirableness of each cherishing a high ideal of the opposite sex, Mr Webster said it was contended by socalled “advanced;” thinkers that our marriage laws did not allow of the full development of women’s liberty and happiness. This was a false opinion, based on a partial view of the subject. The Nature school —and it was that school’s ideas that were, unwittingly perhaps, being spread by well-meaning people and professing Christians—held that everything depended upon physical development, and made no allowance whatever for the claims of the spiritual side of human nature. Hence a marriage which they call one of love, was one of passion; and because such unions did not lead to porpanent happiness, they went about crying Jbat "marriage was a failure,” Some

marriages were failures, and the reasons for such, being the case were apparent; but in many thousands of Christian homes marriage was anything but a failure. The general success of marriage in promoting human happiness was due to the fact that there were so many Christian Euths, placing their trust, in men’s honour, and that there were still men like Boaz who respected womah’s trust and requited it with care and affection. "In these days of Women’s Conventions,” as Mr Webster remarked a week ago, when preaching from the same Book of Euth, “ a useful lesson .may be learned from the story of the Moabitess.” That lesson may he pointed out in vain tp the advocates of repeal of the marriage v laws based on the doctrine of possession; hut the great majority of womankind will, we think, agree that mutual;, lov&jl"trust are of more importance than division of earnings ih order, to arrive. at the “ ideal marriage.”

“ABOMINABLE BOBBISH.”

It is evident, from the remarks made by Mr C. Pharazyn at the annual meeting of the Wellington

Agricultural and Pastoral Association the other day, that he is by no means inclined to sharo Sir John Hall’s views with regard to Government assistance to meat exporters. He looks upon it, indeed, as “ the one thing that would quickly kill their trade altogether.” ■ He has the fine old Tory '‘ faith in the law of ‘ pupply and demand, and would trust everything the farmer and pastoralist may produce to the tender mercies of the London buyers. He had given the matter some attention, he told the members of the Association, and was satisfied there was “nothing to be got out of grading and Government interference.” This is entirely opposed to the conclusions reached by other experts who have investigated the subject, and it would have been interesting if Mr Pharazyn had condescended to submit some of the evidence on which he has formed his opinion. He is able to speak with a considerable amount of experience, and is rightly regarded as a high authority on the production of wool and mutton. It is difficult, however, to reconcile two of the statements he made to the Wellington Association without assuming that, in spite of his protestations to the contrary, he has some hazy idea of the advantages of inspection and grading. It was, he said, in an early part of his address, only the best class of sheep that it would pay to send, and it was only the best class that were being sent. If the second statement were correct it would, of course, be eminently satisfactory; but a little later on he explained to his hearers that directly the London market displayed a little buoyancy it was flooded with New Zealand meat, “some of it abominable rubbish.” Surely Mr Pharazyn must see that if only the best class of sheep were sent away under proper Government inspection there would be no “ abominable rubbish ” to impair the character of New Zealand mutton. If stuff of that sort were shipped at all it would be under conditions that would, not allow it to destroy the reputation of the superior colonial product.