BISHOP NEVILL ON DIVORCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10513, 9 November 1895, Page 6

BISHOP NEVILL ON DIVORCE.

TO THE BDITOB.

Sih,—Dr Nevill has been dogmatising on a snbject 6a which dogmatism is very much oat of place. In hit address to the Anglican Synod lait night he comnjit4;ed v himself to three propositions, on ■' the subject of divorce, all of which are of such a nature as to b". iucaptble of proof:—(1) That our Lord emphatically' proclaimed tba inditoliibiHty of the marriage bond; (2) that the English Church has closely followed His teaching ; aod (3) that departure from this principle means social degradation." As to the first, it is sufficient to mention that the reformers, tho founders of our common Protestantism, took the opposite view. The, " Reforraatio Legum," a work of the highest authority, which was composed by a oommittea of divine* presided over by Cranmer, allowed as lawful grounds of; divorce not only adultery, bat also desertioa, protracted absence, mortal enmities, and lasting cruelty. The second proposition is equally open to question, for history Rhow« tbst in this,'as in so rainy other points,' the English Church bas tried to steer a middle course. The "Beformatio Logum" shows the recognised statement and opinion of the English Church at that time, and it now recognises adultery on the part of the husband as a ground ol divorce. The Catholic Church, on the other band, h&s always -adhered strictly to the doctrioaof indissolunility. The doctrine laid dowa by Dr Nevill m»y be described as a sort of " latent Catholicism."

My object in writing you, however, is not to enter into a theological disoustion, but to refer to the third proposition enunoiattd by the bishop—a proposition which, to my mind, is pare ecclesiastical dogmatism on a subject on which dogmatism is utterly out ot place.. This is a mera question of experience, and a clergyman holding tha opinion that divorce on any gco-itid, or on any other ground than adultery, is impious, is scarcely in a position to form a sound opinion on" queitions of fast and inductions from f«ctJ, for he is inevitably predUposed to tbe conclusion that greater freedom Of divorce must be mischievous because it is üßicriptaral. Testing the biiAop's proportion by fact 6, whut do we Ond? In Sootlsnd, ever gince tbe R=form«tion, dcBertion as well as infidelity of' e'thsr spouie

has been recognised as a ground of dissolution. Does he undertake to carry hn dogmatism so far as to say that thi( caused social degradation in that country?■ He cannot, unless he shots his even to facte or looks at them through ecclesiastical spectacles. We know that in Germany the freedom of / divorce has been carried much furtier cb».n fair! ever been proposed in any of these colonies tr> * • far, indeed, that, subject to certain conditions, divorce can bo obtained by mere consent o£ thi parties; and yet no one will undertake to saj that ssznsl morality amongst married penom is lower there than in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, for example, in which divorce is not allowed at all. Again, opponents, of divorce aria fond of referring to the fearful example of the United States: let us see what the facts are. It must be remembered tfaat in the States we fed the utmost possible diversity—some forbidding it altogether, New York allowing it only for adultery, *nd several (sach as Masnchnsetts) on many more grounds. In Now [Jersey the ground* are adultery and deier- ! tion, as in Scotland; in Pennsylvania they are adultery, desertion, cruelty, and imprisonment. And yet- statistics show- that in proportion to population in New York more divorces are granted for the singte cause of adultery than are granted in New Jersey, and i.lmoßt as many mi for the four causes in Peuasylvuuia. These f *ots show how much oofc oE place dogmatism roust bo oa such a subject, and how relatively unimportant a factor law is in the explanation of the variations of the. divorce rate.

Our marriage laws, beinn based on the Canon • - law as adopted by the £beieat&stteal Courts, have come to have a supposititious sanctity, • which renders it almost impossible to bring them iuto oonsonaoce with, reason, common sense, and morality—a result which we can never expect to attain until we come to look - upon marriage as progressive, like other institutions, social and politic*!.—l am, ic., Dnnedin, November 5. J. MacGbegob. (

THE LIBERTY OF SBAMBN.V v ' : ■'■"■ " I' TO TH*'EDITOB. v' ' :' f/-. Sib, —Some time ago yoo referred to aa ■'*'■ amendment of mine, proposed m Committee otE ' the Shipping and Seamen's Bill, in cbu-i ; demnatory teems. Yon spoke of it as'.Vextra^,^ ordinary," and even " uniqne.'' I do not com- v plain of this criticism, bat with your leave I ' would like to be permitted to say a word.or t#6 : in reply to it. Pressure of work at theHoa* r of. the session has prevented me from doing bo v ' at an earlier period. . '■'.. .V.-; ■•■-.-(,'/ Now, let us start fair. You appear to quota the words of my amendment, but your cotrjiispbndent did not report them cofreetljfc V Any seaman," you Bay, "considering a'vessri ; not safe should be at liberty to leave it,": &c. ; The text of my amendment was as follows:—" Notwithstanding any report upon the saaworthiness of a vessel given by the Government officials, if the seamen are unanimously of opiuion that they consider the vessel not safe 1 for them to sail in, they, shall be at liberty, nqtwith«t»nding their haring signed '; theship's article*, to leave the same wbhcnfci forfeiting' their wages up to date < of leaving." This, to my miad, is * mncn better than the Times' amendment. Yon have it that any seaman may leave; I require, ou the other hand, unMiimity of the ship's crew en the point—a very different:thing. Still,,l; am quite free to CQDfe-o the proposition is not exactly what I would have liked it to be; ■ But when » bill is sprung upon members out-of its due course on the Order Paper, one, having ah object in view, mint seiza his opportunity or.be cootent to let it altogether pass; there is,no time to pick and choose words aod phrases;" and very likely limitations are omitted whioh more careful preparation would suggest. Suoh, at all eyente, U my poor apology for the b»W-. ne«s of the amend meat—«n'. " iHrfavoured thing, but mine" own." And whatever may be said as to bid'rirxfiing, no objection,can be taken to ths desiderafe.d reform. And-it is this last , .about wbidi I am careful.. . I stand or the :principle it embraces. -Why should sailors be treated differently from other ;tirorkiug men? A lafldsnuvn is free tin leave his .employment at. an}';time without' inourring . paios and pauatfitw: why shoved- aot a seaman? I may be told be has signed the ship's articles. So much the worss for theship's articles. -When these lead to aninvAsioa of personal liberty and iofliot gcosa injustice it is high tims they wei'a either ended or mended ; and no doubt they will ere long undergo one or other of these pwce^sas. Meantime the. reformer must "pesawny." I am told that the British sailor, of the fine old type is rapidly becoming extiuck. lam glad to hear it.\ The typical sailor—(didn't we all admire1 him whBO we were boys ?)—was a brave, warm-hesrtei creature—a slave at sea and a rilly spsndthrift on land. The times have changed, and sailors have changed with them; but the law has changed but little, and the code of the marine sarvice is a huge mass of intolerable bsrbirism. On board ship, while at eea; the captain must bB an autocrat. Discipline is of supreme importance. Whether: the order given does or does not commend itself to the judgment of tho sailor hs has to obey it. The rule is a hard one—Hie order is not infrequently unreasonable—but we have to make up oar minds to it. To protest ag»i ÜB t laws which tend to maintain diecioline at ssa would be "a mistake • to protest against thew laws being applicable to the sailor when the *hip is in harbour appears to me to be one of the first dutiea of any Legislature which c«e« for human ri S ht and liberties. Oa mature wflechou I believe you will think to too.—l am, &0., November 8

William Hdtchison.

— Oleomargarine has been foucd by Jolles and Winkler to bo less infected with microbes than ordinary butter. The batter yielded an average of 10 to 20 millions of microbes per gram and a maximum of 47 millions, but the average in oleomargarine was only ♦ to 6 millions, and in no case as much as 12 millions. No microbes of disease were discovered. •

— Another addition to America's big things is the shaft being sunk in a mine at Olumot, Mich. When complete, it is stated that this shaft will extend vertically into the earth for a distance of about one mile before striking the copper load to work which it is being sunk. It is anticipated that it will oocapy four ycers, working night and day, to complete.