DIVORCE IN THE FREE STATE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 7, 18 February 1925, Page 33

DIVORCE IN THE FREE STATE

Lail Eireann is to be congratulated upon its decision to prevent divorce in the Free •State. A Dublin message under date February 12 informs us that Mr. Cosgrove moved that the Standing Orders Committee be instructed to set up rules which would debar divorce a vinculo rnatrimonio. Speaking to his motion, Mr. Cosgrove said the majority of Southern Irishmen held that the ' marriage sacrament could not be dissolved, and that any attempt to legalise divorce would strike at the root of Irish social life. Protessor 1 hrift opposed the motion on the ground that it was unfair to the Protestant minority, and that it would lie a further barney against re-union with Northern Ireland. The motion, however, was carried, and the message ends with the pathetic little comment that there is now no means by winch persons in Southern Ireland can promote a Bill in the House of Lords for divorce. The objections of Professor Thrift are neither sound nor serious. It is not the function of a Government to provide facilities for breaking the law of God. No one would consider the Government justified in passing a Bill enabling people to break the Commandment, “Thou Malt not steal.” Then why bring forward measures enabling them to break any other lawb All the Commandments come from the same God Who decrees that we shall obey them all. He did not give to anyone the power to say, “I will obey this one, but that one I shall disobey.” Professor Thrift has yet to learn that Govmerit, in its sphere of action, must uphold the imperishable law of God at all times, even at the risk of offending those who wish to be a law unto themselves. he question of . injustice to the Protestant minority in the Free State cannot seriously be entertained. i he law docs not affect the whole of the Protestant minority, but only that part of it that wishes to be rid of its wives or husbands and to enter into new alliances. It is a libel on the Protestant population in the Free State to say that it desires facilities for divorce or would make use of them if they were instituted. In any case it would be just as logical for would-be divorcees to complain of the injustice of the Government in refusing to legalise ““ •' as f° r a burglar or a footpad to complain of the in justice of the Government in refusing to legalise theft and burglary. Professor Thrift, and those who think with him, evidently regard the Government as xr-*-> servant of the people, an institution to pander to the whims, prejudices, and follies

prevalent at any given time. He forgets, however, that although the people may elect their Government, that Government, when elected, becomes an administrator carrying out the will, not of the people, but of God. “There is no power but .from God.” Edmund Burke, speaking to his constituents of Bristol, voiced a truth that modern politicians and electors consistently ignore. He said; “You choose a member indeed, but when you have chosen him, he is not a member for Bristol, he is a member of Parliament. His unbiassed judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not hold from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and constitution: they are a sacred trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.” If that is a true definition of the standing of a Parliamentarian (and who can doubt that it is?), Professor Thrift may well ask himself if the Free State, believing in the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, could sanction divorce laws and still remain true to the trust which Provi-

- vj deuce has placed upon it. The question of 1 the liberty of the minority cannot be considered in this regard. To say that one. is at liberty to do wrong if one chooses is to deny liberty, and divorce cannot be defended upon any ground, moral, social, or economic. The last .objection, raised by Professor Thrift, that the motion would be a fur- • ther barrier against reunion with Northern Ireland, is really too trivial to merit comment. The separation obtains .chiefly because interested people in the North and in England know that Irish unity would interfere with their commercial interests. Lloyd George’s letter to Lord Carson, which we published a few weeks ago, disclosed as much and all that has transpired since serves to convince us that even if Dail rearm were willing to institute Mormoiiism Sir James Craig and Lord Londonderry would then object to link up the Holy North with a State prepared to set aside the Divine command, “What God hath joined let no man put asunder.” Excuses seldom are hard to find.