WOMAN AND THE MARRIAGE LAWS. - TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY TELEGRAPH. - The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW : 1883 - 1930) - 26 Apr 1892 (original) (raw)

to the editor of the daily tkij5grafji.

Sir, — Since hitherto — with the exception

of tho Rev. Georgo Walters — Mr. Frank

Cotton and Miss Scott havo been tho only

opponents of my views who havo neither

sheltered thomsolveB weakly behind a voil of

anonymity nor descended to vulgar personal

abuse, I havo pleasure in dealing with a few

of the arguments advanced by them on Sun'

day night at tho Brighton-hull — Miss Scott

as lccturcss, Mr. Cotton as chairman —

especially as their remarks were rnude in that

spirit of temperance and courtesy -without

which any discussion must either fall fruit

less or degenerate into an undignified

quabhlc, as unedifying to outsiders as to the

The curious part of the affair, and one

which proves the broadness of the subject in

hand, is that I can endorse almost every

word my supposed opponents uttered ! They

argued for me better lhau they knew. Of

course this may arise partly from the fact

that both kept to lofty generalities, instead of

descending boldly into the controversial

arena and dealing practically with the pro

blems and questions raised in my lecture-

problems which will absolutely have to bo

taccd us time goes on, as woman gradually

uchicves her economic and jiolitical indepen

dence. It is so easy to appeal to human

nature by moral " catchwords — such a much

moro thankless task to urge people to dis

card "catchwords" and live by the light of

their reason and conscience only. To Miss

Scott, for whom I have a warm regard and

esteem, her somewhat Utopian views of life

and social obligations are not " catchwords,"

her beautiful earnestness makes them a

living reality. But the weakness of her posi

tion, as set forth in her leetnre, is manifested

chiefly in her evident tendency to regard

certain instincts in our nature as " common

and unclean" and others as vory Cno and

noble, instead of regarding all as making np

a "wondrous wholo,"and recognising the

equal necessity for an outlet for material

os well as spiritual energies.

Mr. Cotton, in his opening speech, said

that " He disagreed with a great deal that

Mrs. Ashlon said and placed manly honor

and womanly virtue under a control higher

than that of any Act of Parliament.

rior did ho believe that the retention or

abolition of any Act would effect reform iu

our social life." Mr. Cotton is merely re

peating them in slightly different words to

my owa — that marriago laws anddivorceacta

arc superfluities which, if swept away, would

leave society in just the same condition us it

was when hampered by them on all sides J

Ib not the fact that " manly honor and

womauly virtue are undor a control higher

than that of any Act of Parliament " what I

havo been trying to prove all along? Is it

not for that reason that I have urged Karl

Pcarson'B doctrine — that in a civilised com

munity "tho sex-relationship, both as to

form and substance, should be a pure ques

tion of taste, a simple agreement between a

man and a woman, in whicb, except in tbo

matter of children, neither society nor the

State have a right to interfere?' If Mr.

Cotton's opposition on most topics is no more

formidable than that contained in arguments

like these, I can only say, " May Ji never

Miss Scott said, " If marriage laws were

abolished altogether no true woman would

give herself to a man without love." I

need not point out that if Miss Scott wore

arguing for instead of against my views, sho

could not have dono so in better words than

these. Woman would, -with her innate sense

of modesty and refinement, be, under anv

circumstances, "a law unto herself." This 1

absolutely insisted upon in my lecture. Miss

Scott agrees, aud yet couuot persuade herself

to follow out her argument to its logical con

clusion. She prefers instead to believe that

a woman could do without laws, and yet if

she hadn't them she would go wrong imme

diately. Such a Hibernian method of rea

soning hardly calls for gounucut. Again,

Miss Scott misconceives, though I am sure

not wilfully, my words about "ideals." Sho

will remember that I was particularly care

ful to add iu my lecture, after quoting

Bernard Shaw's assertion that " whole

basketsful of our common ideals about

women must go." " It is hardly necessary to

remark that tho writer refers, not to self-

constituted aud individual duties and ideals,

but to those imposed from outside by custom,

society and tradition." We do well to keop

our ideals, but let us he sura they are our

own, and not those forced upon us by other

Two more points in Miss Scott's lecture

ore sadly contradictory. In the face of hor

main theory that " if we were all good wo

could do without law," she says that

philosophers like Mr. Donistkorpo and Mr.

Karl Pearson, who are endeavoring to break

down marriage laws as tlioy stand, are

" legislating, not for the highest product of

civilisation, but down to tliat typo hardly

removed from the animal." Mr. Karl Pear

son, then, who holds so strongly the theory

that tho higher type of man or woman,

capable as he or she is of self-restraint and

self-guidance, uceds not the outer law, is,

according to Mis3 Scott, directing his energies

to the mad task of binding those who need

no fetters and setting frco those who are the

most likoly to abnso their liberty.

As regards the children, I think those who

heard my lecture will agree that the stress I

laid on the rights of children was great and

urgent; tnat l upnoia nomo mo lor tnem,

except whero au unhappy marriage between

the parents rendered home influence unde

sirable, and that my deprecation of a " love

less marriage" was not only as strong as that

expressed both by Miss Scott and Mr.

Cotton, but that the mercenary element in

marriage was the evil, of evils at which I

directly aimed throughout.

That poople iu an intelligent and thinking

community should construe my words into

an advocacy of a return to savage conditions

never struck me. I had imagined myself

living iu a more enlightened and a purer

atmosphere. I do not pin my faith to Mr.

JCarl Pearson, John Stuart Mill, nor Mr.

Wordsworth Donisthorpo, neither do I sup

pose life perfect, nor public morality faultless

in tbo flaytian Republic or the German

States. My proposals wero rather tentative

tban fimil, and might, had they been taken in

the spirit of frankness aud confidence in

which they were given, havo openod a free

and interesting discussion on one of tho most

important topics of our time. — Yours, etc.,