DIVORCE EXTENSION.
Though we yield to none m our estimation of the sacredness of ihe marriage lie, we freely admit that tbe circumstances of modern soci.ty render it necessary that means should be provided whereby tbat lie may m certain circumstances be dissolved. Even ihe Christian Churches which are naturally most conservative m this matter, recognise that marriage should be dissolvable for one cause — the breach of the vow ot. fidelity, which is the cardinal principle of the contract. But the civil law is altogether one-sided m this matter, inasmuch as while infidelity to the marriage vow on the part of the wife is a cau_e which entities to divorce absolute, a like infidelity on the pari of the husband, unless accompanied by cruelty or desertion, is not. Clearly justice cemands tbat both sexes should be placed on an equal footing, and if, ior this reason alone, we hope that Mr .Samuel's Divorce Extension Bill will be persisted with next session. One of its proposals is that the sexes should be treated alike m this matter — a proposal Which was affirmed some three sessions ago. by the House of Representatives, upon the motion of the member ior Waimate, and which may be said to bave been again affirmed last year by tbe carrying of the second reading of Mr Samuel's Bill. It has also received the approval of the Presbyterian Synod, and is, we believe, concurred m by men of all shades of religious opinion. But Mr Samuel proposes to go much farther than this,, his Bill being almost a transcript of tbe measure carried through the New South Parliament last year, by Sir James Stephen, a similar Bill to which is now before the Parliament ot Victoria, with tvery probability of passiog into law. As there is no doubt that Mr Samuel will proceed with his Bill next session, it is just as well that tbe public should be fully acquainted with what is sought to be enacted. In addition then to the proposal tbat infidelity on the part of either party shall be a sufficient cause lor divorce, Mr Samuel proposes that either of the following causes shall also suffice, viz,, desertion by either husband or wife for a period of three years, habitual drunkenness, accompanied by neglect or cruelty, extending over a period of two years, imprison* ment for seven years or upwards, or (m ihe case ot ihe husband) having through frequent convictions for crime, habitually left fhe wife without means of support, violent assault, inflicting actuai bodily harm, attempting to murder either wife or husband, and incurable insanity. We note that the Presbyterian Synod has petitioned against all these latter proposals, and we have no doubt that as regards some of them there will be strenuous opposi tion, but at least m the case where either husband or wife has been guilty of attempting the murder of the other, we should nave tnought that there wou.d have been a universal consensus of opinion that the tie of ma<'iagv ought not to be held binding if the aggrieved party desire release, it seems to us that there is a good deal to be said m favor of the other proposals, especially those which would make a long term of imprisonment or incurable insanity a ground for divorce, more especially when it is borne m mind that for none of these things would the marriage be ipso facto annulled. All that is proposed is that if
cither party desires to be released from the marriage bond, for either of the causes mentioned, then the Court may grant a decree upon proof of the cause alleged, and we put it to those who desire to refuse relief under such circumstances, whether there can 6e any h.ppiness m the compulsory maintenance of a relationship fr^m whicb, with so grave reason, either of the par i.s desires to escape. If the popular saying that "marriages are made m Heaven " were only true, then no doubt there would be no necessity for Divorce Courts, but, as m only too many cases, we fear Heaven has very little to do with such contracts, Divorce Courts and divorce laws are a necessity albeit an unpleasant one. The only question is what facilities should be given for the dissolution of the marriage tie, and for what causes, and for our part we agree with Mr Samuel that there is a necessity for some measure of divorce extension, though perhaps not quite so sweeping a one as he proposes.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18880114.2.35
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1740, 14 January 1888, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
754DIVORCE EXTENSION. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1740, 14 January 1888, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.