EASIER DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 259, 2 November 1933, Page 13

EASIER DIVORCE.

JN.S.W. LJEUISLAXIUN Ki£J J£l/XJ£i),

(From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, October 20. Some weeks ago I drew attention to a bill to amend the State divorce laws, introduced into f the Legislative Assembly by Mr. A. S. Henry. There are already at least a dozen grounds for divorce recognised by the New South Wales Courts, and Mr. Henry proposed to make two additions to the list—confinement in an asylum or -mental-hos-pital for three years and separation for seven years, "no matter what the original grounds." These innovations are, from Mr. Henry's point of view, not at all startling, for insanity is already a ground for divorce in Queensland, Went Australia, South Australia and Victoria; as well as in New Zealand, where separation for three years "for whatever cause," is also accepted. But Mr. Henry, though he no doubt expected a good deal of opposition, must have been a little astonished at the storm of protest and denunciation that the bill brought down on his devoted head. The attack was led by the six chief Anglican ecclesiastics of .New .South Wales —the Bishops of Goulburn, Grafton, Riverina, Bathurst and Armidale, and Bishop Kirkby, the present administrator of Sydney. In a joint letter to the newspapers they pointed out the obvious difficulties involved in Mr. Henry's proposals —the impossibility of deciding with certainty whether a man or woman, even after three years in a mental hospital, is irrecoverably insane, and the risk of opening the door to divorce by collusion or arrangement, if separation were accepted as a ground for it. A Foregone Conclusion. Mr. Henry replied to these objections both in the Press and in Parliament with a good deal of persuasiveness and force, and he received some support from the general public. But in the House the more conservative section was strongly opposed to any radical modification of the marriage laws, and a large number of the members were manifestly glad of an opportunity to show that they are good churchmen at heart, that they agreed with the bishops, and that they would not assist Mr. Henry in his unholy task of undermining matrimony and thus destroying the foundations of national and social life. This, at least was the line that many of them took in the debate on the second reading of the bill, and by the time a vote was reached the result was a foregone conclusion. The Labour party —that is to say, the Langites—quite early in the discussion made it clear that they would oppose the bill, and thereby laid themselves open to the unkind imputation that their leaders were keeping a careful eye upon the Roman Catholic vote. But much of the criticism to which the bill was subjected could not bo explained away in this easy-going fashion. Curiously enough, most of the objectors— for example the local branch of the British Mothers' Union —seemed to regard the bill as likely to injure women alone, .and they treated it as positive proof of the desire of men to sacrifice women to their selfish passions. Mar.y of the letters in the correspondence columns of our newspapers were Leaded "Divorce Made Easy," and many of the politicians took the same tone in the Parliamentary debate. " Historical" Comments. In the House poor Mr. .Henry's attempt' to straighten out the matrimonial problem was commonly referred to as "the free love bill," and Mr. Frank Burke, Labour member for Newtown, gave his colleagues something to reflect upon in the historical comments and reminiscences with which his speech was plentifully besprinkled. "What," he asked, "happened in the State of Utah? What happened to Henry VIII.? And what happened to Mark Antony?" He even fell back upon King Solomon with his 200 wives and 500 concubines as an argument against this "Free Love Bill," and he recorded his conviction that, "It is to the credit of the present ruler of Turkey, Mustapha Kemal, that he ordered the harem to go." Mr. Burke's final remark was that "Mr. Henry will perfectly realise after I have resumed my seat that his bill hasn't a chance of going through." It should not bo assumed that Mr. Burke's remarks made much difference to their views; But his prophecy was promptly fulfilled. The bill was thrown out by 50 votes to B—which8 —which goes to prove what a strong hold ecclesiastical influence and respect for convention still exercisc over our politicians. "One feels sorry for Mr. Henry who came very well out of tiie ordeal. It may console him to remember that Lord Buckmaster intends to submit to the House of Commons this session a bill —already passed by the House of Lords in 1920 —making incurable insanity and three years desertion—as well as a number of other con-tingencies—-legal ground for divorce, and possibly if this goes through Mr. Henry may try again.