Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9178, 6 October 1888, Page 4

The old complaint of the residents in the colonies, that they are not much taken notice of by anybody in London, will soon have to be given up. We shall by-and-by become quite proud of the number of times in which we are brought up as a terrible example to be avoided or as a pattern to be copied. Truth obliges us to say that in most cases we are the shocking example. That we are profligate in borrowing goes without saying, and now it seems that, according to a colonial bishop, we are becoming loose in morals as respects the great institution of marriage. The latest case in which we have been quoted as a warning to the people of England is a somewhat peculiar one. Bishop Ivennion, of Adelaide, when preaching' at Halford, said that colonial legislators were able men, but " devoid ot those principles of religion so necessary to steadiness in times of political excitement." It is rather strange that the good Bishop should have delivered himself of tins sentiment, not when delivering a speech at the Church Conference or on some public occasion from a platform, but in a sermon. We will let that pass, however. After making the general statement as to our political representatives, the Bishop goes on to support it by citing the Bill brought into the Legislature of New South Wales allowing divorces to be granted when there has been prolonged desertion, or when one of the parties* has been convicted of heinous crime. The measure, it will be remembered, was passed in the New South Wales Legislature, but was not allowed by the Home authorities to come into force on the ground that it was dangerous and most inconvenient that there should be great divergencies between the marriage laws of different parts of the empire. But we demur to the statement that our legislators, whom the Bishop is kind enough to say are able men, are " devoid of underlying principles of religion."' In all such matters comparisons must be made, and the comparison involved in the Bishops statement is with the legislators ot England. But we believe that as large a proportion of the New Zealand House of Representatives would be found to be what might be called 7.. ..lous professors of religion as in the House of Commons. But we do not think that the Bishop's example is at all conclusive. The measure he refers ' to was supported by a great many men who are as good Christians as the Bishop himself, but they do not on this Question take the sacerdotal view Q*

the Anglican Church or the Church of Rome. That is the whole matter. The Anglican Church is politically stronger in England than in the colonies, and because that is so, and because our legislation does not bear the impress of Anglican Church Ideas, our legislators are stigmatised as "devoid of underlying principles of religion." If the Bishop had said that colonial legislators had become demoralised by the scramble for money, and that so far as that was concerned they Jiad given up all principles whatever, then we should have given them up to His Lordship, but even in our own House of .Representatives we have some burning and shining lights who would Have it from condemnation before any tribunal. We refrain from mentioning any names because we might omit some, mid thereby do a grave injustice. Bishop Reunion states what lie thinks is a fact, und quoL what he believes to be a case in point, but he does not attempt to state the cause which makes our legislators more irreligious that those at Westminster. We are naturally more advanced and more democratic than the pood folks of England, but Bishop Ken'.iion ought not to seek to thwart colonial legislation, and to promote his own views, by declaring that those who pass laws to which, as a cleric, he objects, are "devoid of religious principles."