CORRESPONDENCE.

White Ribbon, Volume 11, Issue 124, 15 September 1905, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

To (A# Dear Madam,— ln reply to the letter of Mr Geo. Laurenson, M H R., in your August numt>cr: After caiefully studying his Divorce Bill, which lies t>efore me, I would reiterate the opinions expressed in my last. Mr Laurenson says: •• Mias Powell .... imagines a woman emerging from an asylum sane, and eager for reunion with husband and children, finding another woman reigning in her stead. Well, far Itetter that she should experience this misery thar that she should come home to mother more children, and bring these into the world with that most awful of all diseases, hereditary insanity in their blood. This applies to husband as well as to wife." There is absolutely no provision in the bill for preventing the ex-lunatic, so divorced, from marrying again, and so propagating the evil. It may t>e urged that no sane person would marry another so divorced. No ngkt-tktnktnx person would; but many take this most solemn step in life utterly regardless of consequences especially of consequences to luture generations and should this divorced husband or wife possess money, he or she would have no difficulty in finding another partner, in spite of the cloud hanging over the past. Mr Laurenson gives instances in which the revision of the law in the direction indicated by his Bill would doubtless prove a blessing, but he must himself admit that these are very extreme rases. I should he very sorry to see divorce made any easier in this country. Insanity is an affliction for which the person afflicted is not, as a rule, responsible. Should this Bill tiecome law, it will tie perfectly logical to

divorce the wife whose husband is rendered incapable by accident, or paralysis, or consumption, or any other affliction. I am still of opinion that w'hen a couple take each other M for lietter for worse,” the sorrows as well as the joys should lie shared, and that no good can come of trying to escape —at the expense of possible increased suffering to the other partner - from the discipline allowed by a loving Father. Mr Laurenson's view’s and mine agree upon many points, but I cannot agree with him on this one. 1 am, etc., Mary S. Powell, N.Z. Cor. Sec. W.C.T.U.