DIVORCE LAWS AND BISHOP AVERILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1921, Page 6

DIVORCE LAWS AND BISHOP AVERILL.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In reading your paper of September 30 I noticed, under the heading ‘‘Divorce Law Attacked,” and was rather interested in the Bishop’s remarks. Surely, he could not have studied the recent amendments to the marriage laws, for if he did he must have come to 'the conclusion that the amendments were ■necessary in the interests of morality. The Bishop states: “The Statue Book of the New Zealand Parliament would not have been disgraced with an amendment to the Marriage Law which now permits any man, whatever nis mode of life and conduct, to bring an action for divorce against an innocent woman whom he has compelled to separate from him on account of ’his viciousness, and to obtain a divorce after three years’ separation, and at the discretion of the Judge.” Now, I ask any sensible person. Is not the woman better off' if she gets a divorce? For, mind you, under the amendments, either party can sue, and the Judge is not likely to grant a divorce unless it is to the injured party. Now, on the other hand, I would ask the Bishop, “What about the number of women who desert tiieir husbands and sue for a separation and

falsely accuse their husbands of cruelty. Tn practically all these eases separation orders are granted, and the man is forced to live a life of celibacy or an immoral life. The latter is in most cases the result, and men and women go steadily down hill. Surely the amendments are necessary When we have men such as Lord Buekmaster, Conan Doyle, Lord Northcliffe, Commander Wedgwood, M.P., and numerous others, besides our own Supreme Court Judges and Magistrates, advocating same. Judge Edwards, in a separation case at Wanganui, stated: “I will not grnt a separation; it should be divorce or nothing; separations only lead to immorality.” The late Mr. Bishop, S.M.. who. I believe, was friendly with Bishop Averill, has often stated that the law as it stood before the amendments were made ‘' was most unnatural and cruel. At the present time there is an agitation at Home to have the antiquated laws altered, and a great number of the leading statesmen advocate reform. They are all of the same opinion that separations only lead to prostitution and immorality, but perhaps our Bishop is like the Anglican Church minister who stated that he would not grant a divorce to a woman, even if the husband forced her into the streets to earn her living. This has been published in more than one of the’ New Zealand papers. Now. if the Bishop really wants to stop the dwindling congregations in the Anglican Church, then let him take a more humane view of the matter, and not try to work on the feelings of his congregation with stories about cruel husbands. —I am, etc. CHRISTIAN.