| OCR Text |
Show (ON MARRIAGE VOWS. v n EngUih View Which Seems to fUflMl ; Public-Opinion. f It is said by some moralists that, as marriage mar-riage is "for better or worse," it is the duty of tbe wife to remain with her husband, no matter how bad be may be, and that tbe husband must also condone the errors of the mott Intemperate wife, says the London Lon-don Standard. By upholding rthis indissolubility indis-solubility of marriage we offer, it la argued, a great inducement to the wife to reclaim ber husband, if possible, and to tbe man to attempt the reformation of tbe woman's habits and life. There is something in this plea, but it would have more absolute force if marriage concerned only the husband and wife. We have, however, to take the children into consideration. In the first place, they have before their eyes the dreadful example of a drunken father or a debased mother. Secondly, we must regard re-gard the question of heredity. Mrs. Faw-cett Faw-cett has written a story in which she suggests, sug-gests, as a difficult question, the duty of a wife who discovers only after marriage that her husband is not only a drunkard himself, but the son and grandson of habitual habit-ual sots. She think j with horror that if she continues to live with him, she may become the mother of a son who, as he grows up to manhood, will show, to her agony, all the symptoms of the hereditary mania. Bhe therefore leaves him. It will thus be seen that the question is not settled, even if the partner of the offender resolves to endure personally all tha consequence of the choice. He or so has to consider others as well. We do not perceive why the Legislature Legis-lature could not devise a short act, giving to the wife or husband of .a habitual drunkard the right to separate under, of course, very strict conditions. The habitual habit-ual character of the offense must be clearly proved ; the unfitness of the man or worn an to have the custody of the children, if any, must be established ; and every care should be taken that the release is not a relief re-lief from the expense of maintenance nor any dissolution of the marriage itself. We believe that it would be quite sufficient to grant a simple separation, not allowing either party to marry again. In this wf the remedy would offer no temptation to either side. On the contrary, the existence of such a means of redress would arm the sober husband or sober wife with a powerful means of appeal. A woman who, In spite of remonstrances; persisted in drink, could be clearly told of the probable consequences of continued indulgence, might thus be arrested ar-rested early in the downward course. The bill must, of course, be absolutely applicable to the sexes, and the same remedy to wom-n wom-n as to men. Ho doubt there will be both husbands and wives unwilling to 0&U its provisions into active force. There are forbearing for-bearing men and forgiving women who would prefer to endure all wrongs rather than tell the story in a public court. Yet even for them it will be well to know that redress is within their grasp. Their sufferings suf-ferings will be all the more tolerable when they feel they are voluntary, and that tha law will assist them if they elected to ap I peal to it. A new enactment ot the kine hQsrerer, would brin a Welcome relief tliotisanda of humbler homes. |
