PRESS PILLORY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3139, 8 February 1911, Page 8

PRESS PILLORY.

MR. W. T. STEAD ON DIVORCE.

MORAL PRESSURE OF THE

CHURCH

Giving evidence before the Divorce Commission at Home, Mr. IV. T. Stead, the •well-known writer took up a characteristic attitude when lie insisted "that until Parliament represented both sexes it had no right to put into effect any recommendations of the Divorce Commission.

The Church, he said, while attempting to compel the Wtate to force on the world Christ’s law of marriage—''which was lor Christ’s people, to be vountarily obeyed by them but of loyalty to Him —had practically abdicated, with few exceptions, its duties as teacher and moyal director of the nation. On matters pertaining to marriage the Church neither instructed the young, exhorted their congregations, nor rebuked evil-doers. The State, if possible offended even more shamelessly, for the State marriage was only a civil contract, and, while insisting that the contract should be life long, it took no •steps before giving it sanction to ascertain that both parties were fully aware of the conditions they were accepting. A good deal had been said about the equality of the law between the sexes. He went much further than to demand equality. Much stronger bars were necessary to restrain a maneating tiger than to confine a nvdd gazelle. Ho would give much greater liberty of divorce to women than to men, for the economic position and 1 physical disabilities would operate as a more effective restraint on the. woman than the utmost the law could enforce on the man. When woman attained full citizenship and realised the corollaries of the doctrine that she had an immortal soul, she would refuse to marry unless assured of a legal right to impose some check upon unlimited cohabitation, and an absolute veto at any time during her married life upon being made a mother against her free and full consent. The State ought to protect the weaker partner, and secure the interests of the children, and could best do this by frankly abandoning attempts to preserve the family upon the old basis of male domination. Marriage as a civil contract might be dissolved for —(1) Adultery; (2) desertion for a term of years; (3) failure or refusal to maintain wife and children,; (4) incurable insanity; (5) penal servitude. All divorce cases should he tried! by mixed juries of men and women. THE EVILS' OF SUPPRESSION.

If the State desired to encourage divorce, by ail means let divorce be Heard in camera. He had worked all his life against vendors of obscene books, pictures, and prints, but the deadliest enemies of public morality were those who persistently ignored the existence of vice, and suppressed the evidence as to its prevalence. By gagging the press they would destroy the last remaining pillory by which it was still to impose some restraint upon the lawless lust of man.- Let in the light! A good arc lamp did more for morality than two policemen. The eye of man was still a potent deterrent. The Divorce Court was the modern substitute for the Dav of Judgment, nof because of the decrees which it pronounced, but because of the publicity which it secured. Instances of downright obscenity in law reports were very rare. Even if obscene, reporting were more frequent, it would be better to run the risk of such occasional outrages than to gag and! fetter the press of the whole country. If the Church still aspiiixl to be a director of the moral forces of the nation, what an opportunity was afforded' it of rallying the conscience of the community to cleanse the journalism of the land ! But. since Cardinal Manning died, he had never met a bishop or parson who over seemed to think that even editors had souls.

In reply to questions, the witness said he had no faith in judges, who might be good l or bad. The witness mentioned two names to illustrate has remark. The chairman (Lord Gorell) : Do von not think wou had better leave out names?- —You can bowdlerise my evidence' as you please. The chairman: That is a most improper observation. THE CHURCH AND MORALITY. Sir Lewis Dibdin asked the witness what he meant when, he charged the Church with abrogating its function inregard to morality. Tlie witness said they might go to a thousand churches and never hear a reference to the sin of adultery. _ Sir Lewis Dibdin : Do you think, so far as your experience goes, that the clergy never rebuke the sins of the flesb?” Mr. Stead: No, in my experience, never. It is the greatest difficulty in the world to get them to do anything when you get a modern movement on. Sir Lewis Dibdin : I think you have been unfortunate in your selection of churches.

The witness said be was glad if Sir Lewis Dibdin’s excellence had been better than his. Sir Lewis Dibdin asked for an illustration of bow this moral pressure might Ixi exercised.

The witness proceeded to refer to a particular divorce case. _ The chairman: I think, Mr. Stead, that ought to he struck out. All you plight to do in a case like this is to say that you think pressure ought to be brought to hoar upon those who are guilty : but people are not here to defend themselves. and I shall, not allow any reference to what you have just said.

The witness: It is ancient liistorv. and I give it as an instance of the exercise of moral authority.

Sir Lewis Dibdin: Can you suggest any means of exerting moral pressure which has not been tried? The witness said he thought something might be done if the attention of the churches was drawn to the importance of using moral pressure. Do you imagine that the Free Church Council and the clergy are not as anxious as you to put a stop to immoralitv P They may bo as but they do nothing. . In reply to Sir George Atyhito, the witnoss said ho would havo faithful admonition in the pulpit upon all questions .relating to the sexes, and' lie would have preparation for matrimony as for confirmation. Matrimony was more important than' confirmation.