The Dominion. FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1909. THE DIVORCE LAW.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 525, 4 June 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1909. THE DIVORCE LAW.

.Most of the-opposition to those who dislike of facilities for di-' vorce is the result, not of careless think-' ing, but of what has bfcen noted by a thoughtful English journal aa "a certain light-heartedness, or complacency of temper',' in the modern.civiliscd statb. It is, with some surprise, therefore that wo learn to-day that Mr. Justice Edwards and Mr. Ji.'.UME, K.Cj, have'been expressing views on'the divorce' laws of a kind that imist be called specially noxi-: ous'in view of the important positions Which they occupy. The occasion of their statements wiis 'hn application to tho Supremo Court'for an order for tho restitution oi conjugal rights. Fxlfir bo

last year disobedience of such an order

was a valid ground for complete divorce, and, as is well known, this provision in tho law was freely resorted to by people who had grown tired of tho conjugal yoke, and who wero glad to assist each other .to* l'egain their freedom without having to do anything disreputable. As tho result of agitation against a law that thus made divorce easy and "respectable," the disobedience of an order for the restitution of conjugal rights was struck out of the list of grounds for divorce. Mr. Baume regards tho amendment of the law aB an act of "folly," and ventured the opinion that "it was a great pity the Legislature did not permit tho release of parties who found it impossible to live together." Judge Edwards concurred in this, view, and said that "some people seomod to think, it was better for people to live K apart,'and the husbands to leave their wives to ' commit adultery, than that they should be freed from the marriage bond. The amendment in the law promoted immorality |n a very marked degree."

We are all familiar with this kind ,of talk. "Why," tho argument generally runs, "should people be tied together for a life of misery when, by cutting the bond, they might both b6 mado happy?" No doubt thero are cases, perhaps very many cases, in which divorce would mako miserable people happy, without causing unhappiness to others. But whiles the fact may properly be a reason for sympathy with the people who have failed.in marriage, it is not an argument in favour of so relaxing the divorce laws as to relieve men and women from taking proper care to make marriage a success. Every proper reason for divorce is already recognised by the law. It will be a: sorry day when the law encourages foolish marriages by adding 1 to the grounds of divorce an unwillingness in husbands and wives to bear and forbear. To . sentimentality, of the day no price appears to be too high to pay, no. principle too important to be kept ■from Violation, , for the relief * of individual distrosßes. ' Wo see the working of this ruinous; spirit in many directions. In their haste to get the ugly unhappiness out of sight,. our sentimentalists come forward with, emotional ' theories and; proposals without .considering their ultimate , results. In. this general deliquescence of morality, we, need another Nietzsche to preach the wholesome doctrine of'hardness. and sternness, What Nietzsche says generally of sympathy has a special value, and is specially true in ' its application to that opinion ; on divorce which has received, the : support of Mr. Justice , Edwards and Mr. Baume.. "Sympathy," .'says tho great German, "stands in .direct antithesis to: the tonic passions which elevate' the energy of human beings and increase their ' feeling- of efficiency. jind power.

. .• It is both a multiplier of misery and a conservator of misory.: It-is -the principal tool for the advancement of dccadencc." •

' Divorce laws are not intended,' or. at 'any,rate should not be considered, as alleviations of marriage;.-. They must bo regarded • Only as assistants to. the .offi'oieney of. the .institution.' They .are wise when, cautiously framed, they amount; to penalties for ' offences' against tho ■■ institution. But that is not a wise divorce law, but anarchy and the negation of law| whibh;'_strikesat the . very heart of marriage; by enabling it to be treatbd, not'.asHhe central institution' of society, butas a thiijg for the -individual's whim. Something to be lightly entered into and as lightly* departed 'from. There has been 'so much sapping of the foundations! in late.years, no:touch; disregard for fundamental principles,'that it was a ./iVftry cheering event' when the' Legislature ; in 1907 was brave enough to adopt the reactionary, courso of repealing the law that i opened the door toi what has been called "the conjugal rights fraud." y,''