THE DIVORCE BILL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2586, 19 November 1867, Page 6

THE DIVORCE BILL.

(TO THE EDITOR 01' THE INDEPENDENT.)

Sin, — I have besn not a little concerned, when in your leader of tho 17th instant, I read this sentence : — " Wo do not think religious arguments have any real bearing on the question. The state only recognises marriage as a civil contract, and is therefore bound to provide machinery for its dissolution." Well, nothing more sophistical than that way of arguing. A phrase like that would have been very fit in the mouth of former Caisars, the persecutors of Christian religion. They would havo said, and said really, by the lawyers of the day — tho State does not recognise the religion of Christ, aud is therefore bound to provide machinery for its dissolution. Pray, what is tho Stati ? What is its rule ? Who makes it ? Formerly, the State, the law, the government, the rule, was the absolute will of Ctesar. Now, in the modern days, what is the State ? Those who govern tho country ; those who make laws and administer them; they are tho State. What is tho rule, the principle by which they make laws ? Public opinion. Who make public opinion ? All public speakers and writers, and, principally, you journalists. Therefore you are tho State, or the State iv an expression, a personification of. you, or of your opinions. Henco we must discuss opinions, adopt or reject them, not by the pleasure of that abstract being, tho State, but by the intrinsic merits of their opinions ; not by expediency, but by truth and justice. Behold the vicious circle of those who, in the opinions they profess, are guided by the State. They think so, because the State says so; and the State saj-s so, because they think so. Therefore, I say, we ought to judge of matrimonial and all other matters of morals, not by tho criterion of the State, but by tho criterion of reason ; I should say, by the criterion of Christianity, which is a far better master than the State.

Well, tho State, or you and your brothers in the press, who contribute in a great degree to tho ■ formation of the State ; you, who assert that marI riage is only a civil contract, you assert an error, and you or the State must be instructed. Marriage is not a civil but a religious contract. Why so? Because it is Gh>d( not man, who binds tho contracting parties. Tile State can and must orotect the matriinoniflp contract 'and regulnte its civil effects j but tojßass laws which ntFect ifc| substance, impair j^flKcgrity, and especialb^; : t-S bgjiltftfgjjgb^^ifidHHion, that is an f Jlt-Jr*' iinj9H^^^BEfl|Sß9B lc State >n'or. 'the opinions 'otoS^^HHHHHB naturG*6r'altor'tho duratVflvrlffißPPjßyjrefpondg oil the will of Him, whose laws are er'rnal. In vain thjp State will say, " For certain reasons I will dissolve matrimony. One abovo all will say : " What God bus joined, let no man put asunder." Things must bo as Glod ordered ; they should bo in thoir substance and morality ; otherwise, they aro not at all. I must shorten my letter, for I havo not the pretention to convert to my opinion, at this late hour, those who, like tho adders, stop their ears. I only* enter my last protest. lam sorry to say that those who havo contributed to make the Sj,atc what it is in regard to the marriage law, will have to answer before a future great parliament. Then, Stnto opinion shall be a poor shcller. Those who will be found having acle.l Pilate, shill not be much better off than those who perpetrated the deed of gibbeting truth and morals. Happily, some will be excused by unwilful ignorance. That is all my consolation. I thank you, Mr Editor, for giving to the public some of the principal provisions of tho Bill of Divorce. I observe that tho husband can always petition against his wifo in ease of adultery on her part, not bo the husband in a similar

delinquency. There must be added some aggravating circumstance of cruelty, &c. That is liberty, equality. Alas ! tho weaker sex has been roughly handled by some of our gallant members of the Assembly. That enactment savours of a tendency towards woman's servitude. Indeed, the law, as passed, is not exactly Turkish law, but to her sho is first cousin. — I urn, &c, CIIRISTUNUS.