EXPLANATION BY MR A. P. HERBERT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21743, 27 March 1936, Page 21

EXPLANATION BY MR A. P. HERBERT

THE BILE

CONFIDENT OF SUPPORT WITHIN THE CHURCH

(ffAOit oca otnr cObmworosxt.)

LONDON, Mttch 3.

Mir A. 19.I 9 . Hubert has explained the Purpose of his Marriage Bill, in an Article in the “Dally Telegraph.’* The Mi Is—to use a phrase which is not iny own*-* new approach to the divorce problem> or, rather, the problem of getting something done,” states Mr Herbert. “It is 24 years since the Royal Commission reported, and all efforts to pass its recommendations through the House of Commons have failed, These recommendations, of which the most important are the new ‘ grounds for divorce and nullity, are embodied in the bill.

“Many’ people do not like them all, as they stand: I do not myself; but they could be amended in committee. “And now: for the new proposals. I believe that moderate Church opinion is muOh more ready for a reasonable reform of the State law than most MOmbers of. Parliament suspect; end having;, -been elected a member for oxford University I have good reason for saylng so. • “Those who addressed my envelopes have estimated the number of clerical electors ,at figures varying from 29 to 3d per cent, (t do not know, which figure is correct). In my election address I made no secret of my intentions: and I auoted the saying of the Archbishop of Canterbury on October 20: “The time has come when it .is imposibfc for Parliament to resist the growing public demand for some extension. of presumably legal grounds oi ditee.

Approval in the Church

; ‘’fteasbriable churchmen, 1 believe, new recognise the great volume of pupllo opinion which faveursrrform, and . are weary of having this tiresome question blattering at their heel*. But they wish to be assured that what is proposed Will net mean the-break-up of marriage and the family, arid that where the State law diverge* from the Church’s ideal* their own consciences will be respected. Smneof the pew proposals wifi, I hope, provide that assurance, though they are not put forward for that purpose only. • "*«• bill provides that there shan ,ba no dlvwee within five yean ofmarflags. This, I,sweat, is not merely a sop to those who fear that mote humane divorce will mean 'Hollywood' divorce. 1 *1 believe it to be early years are often the most difficult, and, among the hasty, cause, dissolutions which might with delay, have been avoided. But it does not mean, a* some have supposed, that two real Irreconcilable will be bOimd to dwell together lor the full tom; there remamludleial separation, Sith maintenance and any other reef. and nullity at any tune. There will, no doubt,, be a lew hard eases, but not so many as there ere to*day; and it IS better that one should be unhappy lor five years than lor life.

No Compulsion on Clergy a “Another clause relieves the clergy from the legal compulsion to remarry a divorced person whose former spouse is stytt living, or to permit the use of hisehurch lor that purpose. There will be a good deal of bluster about this. io<wwhy should an Innocent party bo denied the right of marriage In church?’ and so on.' ‘‘There are numerous things to be aaid -about, jhis;. but 2 am content to found my own -opinion upon, the ground of lncongrulty. Jf a divorced fergon, -however; ‘innocent.’ docs not think.lt absurd to swear before Cod that she will cleave to No. a ’till death Us .though death has. not darted her from No. 1, she must at least admit that it is unseemly: to place any compulsion upon a priest to lend his aid in that affair. I think that the . church, established or not, should, to this extent at least, be master in its own house.

. "Four membergof the Labour party h&vS backed the bill, and this encourages me greatly. For many socialists have been inclined to dismiss divorce law reform as a matter which has no interest for the poof. ; “It is true enough that some reformats in the past have seemed to think only of those who can afford expensive solicitors and barristers. It is true that a man who can scarcely keep up a singe-home has leal temptation to assume the expense of keeping two. tut it it far from true, as I know from my letter-bag, ;; that poor people are dot interested, l. have read a state* ment that in 1836 70 per cent, of the London applications for assistance milder tee Poor Persons’ Rules related to matrimonial caies—and 77 per Cent. Of tease in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Oxford.

“Cases in which a separation order is applied for. often reveal, upon investigation, a cause which can be corrected: husband and wife are, seen, in private, by a sympathetic and experienced worker, often many times, and, though tie legal rights are denied, the result la often that no legal remedy Is de? ./'But when the remedy demanded is divorce the magistrate h«s no Jurisdiction and the couple can receive nothing but legal assistance. Yet in divorce oases oonciliatipn machinery (based on consents Is really more necessary teen in applications for separation; for if « poor husband is free to marry again the chances teat the first wife will receive whatever maintenance is ordered muit be much reduced. “In.certain cases tea fcoiloe courts already deal with charges of adultery. It if now proposed to give selected magistrates a limited jurisdiction in divorce. The evidence is to be taken there and recorded as ate now tee depositions in criminal ctuies. The court announces its findings of fact, and thd documents are then sent to the divorce court, where in clear eases a divorce will be pronounced without tee attendance of the parties. Doubtful and difficult cases would be transferred to the high court. : Not a “Divorce BUI”

“The proposals, I am well aware, will not receive immediate approval among the strict legal trade unionists, among those who think that divorce is a crime as bed as murder and therefore cannot be trusted to any but a High Court Judge, among those who like to con* eentrate all important activities ih London, among those who stagger at the shock' of a new idea, end many others.No doubt, there are difficulties. But m the end, I believe, the proposals, or something like them, will prevail, , local jurisdiction in divorce in England before 1657; there are domestic courts in America now, and some day. we shall have them here, “If these new proposals and the abortion of the‘decree nisi) were dropped the old bill would be left. They are essential to my conception of the right line of reform, but not, X know, to everybody's; and anyone who does not like them is free to* Introduce the old bill or cut them out of mine in committee. thing is that the sublect should receive! the attention of Parliament. , “At least, I hope that it will now he 3TJKBSS UP tt * M,rrl>!o

(no* ova ow* co»aa«»*»sw.l . • - LONDON, February at. \ * Some of the oldest and teWit e*: lathered 1 af St oK f SSftJSS 1 !! fJW;, Major peal, states .a oorreagomteiW of “The Times.” , It was Mia to be the first time teamen who more than 1000 peals each had met - T together In orte band. < ft is remarkable for a ringer to have accomplished 1000 peak, end,* only oho or two of the ringers who > took part on Saturday had less tean - So years of ringing to his credit. The > oldest member of the band was Mr-,; James George, of Birmingham, who is over 00 years of age, and the. others were but a few years younger., ■ The ringers travelled to London from different parts of tee and met at St. Olay’s early in tee afternoon. The signal to start, was v given, by the leader, Mr George Pye,of .Romford, at S.lO p.m. and spectators left the tower—for the,{ slightest interruption might ruln a/ ; peal—the treble bell was struck:.; Rapidly the other chimes rang*through the sequence of the change v until the tenor bell was reached and v tee second sequence began. Sub-/ aequently each sequence was 1 varied in conformity with the rules Of the:., peal until 9090 changes had been " rung. • . . A Few people, apart from those :Who. v had gathered in the churchyard to ?’ listen, realised that an eXtrSordin- 1 dry bell-ringing performance was v taking place.. The bells had been : muffled because of the death of ~ King George, and this, added'to theT. deadening effect of the ,fog, prevented the sounds from .Carrying a great distance. - %

■ Experts who attended the performance expressed the opinion teat the band was one of the best ever brought together. : .

tHffpmo.