DIVORCE LAW.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 30, 29 July 1867, Page 2

DIVORCE LAW.

On July the 19th, the Hon. Mr Harris, of Otago, in the .Council asked tne Hon. Major Richardson if it were the intention of the Government to ’ during the present session, a.Bill to .assimilate the laws relating to divorce and matrix *' mony with those in force in England—to which the Hon Major replied, that the Government had no such intention, but would be most happy to consideration and support to one if brought in by -a private mdmhhr.' VW$ >y believe New. Zealand is the on](y colqui m these seas without a'law of the kind: . . ... s ■-> . k ,>*

During the session when Mr Domett and Mr Bell were placed at the head of the Government, Mr Fox would have introduced a Divorce Bill, hut abstained under tbe impression that such a step always originated with the Government for the time being; this was subsequently found to be an error, for the Divorce Bill of Victoria was introduced by a private member, it became law, and by competent judges is considered suitable to be placed on the statute hook of New Zealand. There can be no doubt that a divorce law is necessary in this colony, and we think it reflects no credit on “New Zealand statesmen” that no such law at present exists; hut though none will deny the necessity for such a law, groat differences of opinion will exist, when the question comes to be decided, on what grounds divorces ought to he granted. In passing a divorce law care must be taken not to render the bands of matrimony too loose in trving to make them loss stringent. Marriage is a life-contract-, and the law should afford no facilities or encouragement for the breach thereof. If divorces on light grounds could be readily obtained, there is danger of causing worse evils than those we wish to guard against. Not the least of these would be hasty and inconsiderate marriages. If incombatability of temper was to be deemed a sufficient reason ior unloosing the marriage tie even less care would he taken than at present to discover by the parties most interested whether their tempers were or not computable. The knowledge of the fact that “ evils which can’t he cured must be endured ” possesses in this particular caio many advantages. Wc submit in a variety of cases without mumering to great inconveniences simply from the belief that there is no help for them. This is more especially true in the marriage state. We would net admit that either incompatibility of temper or disinclination for each others society was a sufficient reason for a divorce. Even cruelty itself could he mere properly punished than by granting a dissolution of the marriage tie. There arc navertbe- i less other grounds besides those of adultciy and fornication on which divorces might be granted, and, in our opinion, in this colony, desertion should be deemed one of tbs foremost of those. If the husband deserts the wife or the wife, the husband the aggrieved party ought to he at liberty to contract a second marriage. Many evils have been ; caused by this liberty being withheld, of the existence of which there are but few of our readers who are not more or less cognizant. Open immorality, illigitimale offspring, bigamy, domestic unhappiness and bad example, with a whole train of other evils and vices, are the consequences of the present state of the law, and in our i foregoing remarks we have been only anxious that care should he taken while attempting to escape from one danger that we do not rush into another. After the creation of the Divorce Court in England so numerous were the applications for the legal dissolution of the bonds of matrimony that man y persons became alarmed, and adopted the opinion that the facility for divorces created the demand : hut the truth was that there were many painful cases, which until then were not madcpublic, which demanded relief as soon as possible. We remember when the new police force was created by Sir Robert Peel’s hill that such was the increase of cases brought before the Magistrates that many persons thought that crime was the consequence of the improved means of detection, in- , stead of seeing that under the parish j constable and “night Charlie” most! crime had heretofore been committed with i impunity. |

In some countries divorces are obtained perhaps with to much facility, and it is stated that in .several of the United States one can he obtained at the cost of half a dollar; vet we do not hear of every American being divorced immediately after the honeymoon has terminated, nor even of divorces being- by any means common in America. If refusing to allow of divorce could be shown to be conducive to morality there would be some reason for declining to pass a law on the subject; hut it is patent to all of us that this refusal has the very opposite result. It prevents legal marriage, and as a consequence encourages unlawful cohabitation. And hero a feature of the utmost importance presents itself, and that is the unfortunate position of children whenever thus horn out of wedlock—they arc harmless, helpless victims but too often so from the state of the law. Some may not. feel the slur attached to their birth—but among the class there must be a great many of a sensitive nature and sad must be their feelings, occasioned frequently by the impossibility, from the state of the law, of their parents having been enabled to enter the marriage state and thus as far as possible preserve the respectability of their little ones. It may be stated that there are many unmarried couples who voluntarily live in disgraceful cohabitation, whose progeny would not be relieved by the divorce law—this of course must he admitted and regretted, but if it is to be offered as an argument the proposition involved is that if it is hopeless to annihilate all evil, evil should remain unchecked and no other social state but that it would create, if left, so ought to he tolerated. But none will boldly make any such assertion. The Suestion is does a divorce law create or iminish suffering more particularly of

the unfortunates, the - offspring 1 of illicit intercourse,' of those who demand our deepest sympathy, and the Lest answer to t! # question is. that all civilized nations have found it necessary to enact Divorce Laws.- Marriage is regarded now-by-nations as a civil contract, and its obligations must be complied with in the first instance, and nothing more is legally demanded of the contracting parties, for which reason wc have purposely abstained from any reference to religious obligations. We certainly hops that in-the cause of morality and the social well-being - of New Zealand a Divorce Law will be passed by the Legislature this session, as we consider already such an act lias been too long delaved.