The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1910-07-02 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

RICII AND I. Pow::  "4.11'.1  la_St hul %  but let in, not Let u take away 1..0rt I lo.y biteuhl not lit it to the poor 0 1 i:egarding the eonI eel. tie t-peaker affirmed e.ete moral than the e. ,t, tort attr,buted to the lie thought the rerpect the •• had ter the governing [tea. It mould be • ‘'..,-rett 01 the divorce .‘ wj I, .1 I. A .I.teger ter the Louise:, the that weind et one an''t I,gan to nitake the ~,, It litt,bande, and hue,aotild be a terrible ..z. *de. a blot, at the haputility. The woman was • place a hen she aan ii el laperient.e of the t; 34. a tr. t.howb that the dent. harm. Look at  4+44 .414.1 41.,  •1  ••• iiieraa. %V heti h-o extended the ii -ay the law was not there tva boniething to Atkr glring SOMP in' ' • t thing:. in Auntralia,  • .m.l the marriage law in ' elolred, and we must 2" ml but forward. There were •-•icr•,.kone.l with besides the •••,' iz., pot:terity awl Im.l if. harmonibe liberty the bulwark of 4'41 had .4 right to ray on • ailfkwed marriage 6 to .• h, put it to the audience marriage WAS  social institution worth retaining. If they were going to retain it., it must be for life. It must be a lifelong marriage for better, for wore. If it should happen to be the *ore, the injured ones should have sYmpathy. But any institution which was *orth having must have its martyrs, and to pull down a social institution because a comparatively few suffered would be social suicide. He moved that the divorce laws be repealed. Alrs. Raffles Haley, who advocated the aniendmeut of the present divorce laws, began by saying that she was at one .with those who have the highest ideals about true marrisige. NO words were strong enough to express, the beauty and glory of that close and wonderful relationship when it. is a union. Her reason for wanting equality between the sexes in the case of divorce was just because she had high ideals about marriage, and the dual ideas of morality &s expressed in our laws keep all our ideas about marriage relations low. As long as a wife is, dragged before the court and disgraced, while the husband is not touched or brought up to answer for his conduct when he has committed the same fault, just so long and no longer I men argue that England condones marital unfaithfulness. As long as a woman is punished for accosting a man in the streets, while a man may accost a woman with impunity, men will find the path of inmniorality easy, and u noont rolled men will pursue it. Public opinion follows the la*. Certain people are now influenced by the teaching of the churches, but the law helps to form the opinion of the far larger  masses who are outside the churches ae well as of those in them. To-day we are considering, as the Royal Conunission is now considering, broken contracts, unions which are no longer unions, unions meant to be of two persons, but now involving a third person, that person not being one in the original contract. and in many cases unions with two families of children. In the face of grim facts like these, and in I the face of the confusion and misery of a mixed family, how is it possible to say that a union exists? Let us keep before our minds always in considering these cases  Or) r I t 1 110Nr t.' • • IL I. I. tr I. I.