The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1867.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 195, 21 August 1867, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1867.

There can be no question that, regarding the Bill for the introduction of the law of Divorce into thi« colony, which has just been brought forward by Mr Travers iu * the Legislative Council, simply without reference to its moral or religious bearings, there are many specious arguments which may be adduced in favor of such a measure. It is pleaded, and not altogether without justification, that in no part of the world is the crime of wifedesertion more common lhan in these colonies, and that in no country is it harder for the poor woman to live and maintain herself and children in an honest way. It is urged that the battle, at best, is but. a rough one even for the men, but for the women, what hope is there in the struggle ? There is only oue resource, and that, black as it is, is barred to all save the young and the well-favored. To the desolate mother of children what does the fair and rich young colony offer ? It seems probable however that the relief which is sought by this measure will go but a little way towards the alleviation of such misery. A Divorce Act in itself will make no nation happy or virtuous. The virtue and happiness of uatious do not depend after all upon the laws which regulate the social relations; and it is just as absurd to suppose that au arbitrary relaxation will make meu loose as that an artificial restriction will make them rigid. The laws of a country are the impress of that country's miud upon legislation; they are not the cause, but the consequence, of that moral sense which must lie at the base of tho whole social fabric, and regarding the proposed measure from this point of view, we can hardly believe that it will be met with any large acceptance in this colony. There can be little doubt that the greater part of the women are against it ; tbat, on tbe whole, the sex would rather have the tie made stricter than looser. The feeling of good women is one of the world's best iustincts; and we are disposed to place great faith in its guidance in this particular instance, and to our mind the fact that the good women are nearly always the happy women, who, secure in their own blessings, can scarcely forgive the uufortuuates of their own sex, however selfish an aspect it may bear, is not far from being a correct index to the true light in which this question should be regarded. We shall of course be told that it is natural that those who have made the good marriages should regard witb jealousy any proposition to deprive marriage ofany partof its sanctity, even in imagination; and that rather than, even io name, the contract should be less binding, Polly, who is happy in her husband, will let the poor Lucy be beaten and danced upon hy the choice of her youth. The best of women, we shall be reminded, are apt to be si little fierce in the cause of their goodness, and we grant that Penelope would have made but an indifferent juror in the Divorce Court, and that no deserted wife in Ithaca would have gone to the spouse of Ulysses to seek counsel as to the expediency of getting' a new husband. • ... ' ; " Mr Travers argues that the British

IW — _____■ ij— _«■_■ ill ■'" ' *—*"—.»—»."■* Parliament has already passed aa Act, by j large majorities in both Houses, by which desertion for the period of seven years is made a ground for seeking a dissolution of marriage, and that New Zealand, therefore, is only asked to follow iu the steps of her moral and respectable parent — with such a difference as, without involving auy new sin, makes the law more suitable to the peculiar requirements, as is alleged, ofthe colony. But it is hardly necessary to remind our readers that the conditions of society at hom^ are far more multifarious aud complicated than those which prevail in this colony, and the precedent could not be adopted with any justice or propriety. The present Go vei nment — not perhaps the most scrupulous which has been iu office since tho foundation of the colony' — has been openly challenged to introduce such a measure, and has as distinctly refused to accept the responsibility of taking such a step, at all events under present circumstances. Putting aside the law of God, which has declared the marriage tie indissoluble, we submit that the originator ofthe Bill has not made out a case why it should be entertained. He has by no means shown that society would in any appreciable degree be benefited, or that the people have asked for it. On the contrary, we are much disposed to believe that the majority of the country is hostile to any interference with the present state of the law, and that the passing of the proposed measure would tend to demoralise society. In England and, nearer to us, in Victoria the Divorce Court is a source of evil and scandal, which is attracting the serious attention of those who were instrumental in getting the law passed, and contrary to Mr Travers's statement that the law of divorce is in force in all the Australian colonies, New South Wales has ever opposed the introduction of such a measure most strenuously. The comparatively few cases of hardship amongst married people are not to be weighed against the numerous instances in which the Divorce Court has only been made use of to gratify the evil passions of those who bave had recourse to it. In this colony we have hitherto managed to get on very well without it; the law is quite sufficient to protect tbe woman from the injuries of the husband, and it can even enable persons to obtain judicial separation without going to the extreme of dissolving the marriage bond, and we trust, for the honor of, the colony, that the proposed measure will never become law_