The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1909. DIVORCE AND THE POOR.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 602, 2 September 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1909. DIVORCE AND THE POOR.

The varied and, difficult problems relating to divorce have on several occasions been before the Parliament of this country in recent years; and thcro is never any very long interval between the successive discussions of the general question which arise out of the Divorce Sessions of the Supremo Court. It is only a few weeks, for oxample, since we bad to protest against the attack mode by Mit. , Justice Edwardb and Mb. F. Bauiie, K. 0., upon tho stringency of the marriage bond, or rather, that we may not be misunderstood, Upon what they considorod tho harshness of the law's definitions of tho causes justifying divorce. Tho question' ,has lately come under discussion in Great Britain, and tho latest English newspapers show that a very serious controversy is proceeding which is likely to end in a fundamental alteration of the existing law. " Many thoughtful people have long boon pert'irbaci by what fchoy bellovu to bo tbc ... t ■■ .< ■ .......... ~

forcing of a s great current of evil into tho stream of society by tho inaccessibility of divorces to tho poorer classes, and in tho House of Lords last month Loud Gorell, the President of tho Divorce Court, moved "that it is expedient that jurisdiction to a limited extent in divorce and matrimonial cases should be conferred on county courts." There was no proposal in his mind, as he was careful to explain, for tho alteration of the law of 1857. All that he wished was to change the proeedurcin order that facilities for divorce should not be confined to the well-to-do classes. Make divorce less expensive, so runs his argument, and you will avoid the evil and immorality that flow from the wide recourse of. the unhappily married amongst the poorer classes to separation orders. It-appears that the costs .of a petitioner in an ordinary undefended suit for divorce are from. £40 to £60; in a defended case • they may run into hundreds of pounds. Even when one sues in forma paupcris only the court fees, amounting to £6 or £7, are saved. Nor is the only, obstacle a pecuniary one. Lord Gorell" has frequently received letters from poor people who are unable to go to London from their work in order to take proceedings. The separation orders—nearly 7000 are issued annually! —are known to encourage immorality by keeping people married but apart. The ■hardships under the present law are of course too great and obvious to be denied, but mere individual hardships do not at'all challenge the soundness of a law. The 'Archbishop of Canterbury, who replied to Loud Gorell, recognised the hardships, but he could not favour any proposal for extending the facilities for divorce. He denied the arguments as to immorality which, were drawn from the freedom with which people availed themselves of separation orders, mainly on the ground that in very few cases was adultery put forward as a ground for the issue of an order. Me. Plowden, the well-known magistrate; pointed out, however, that no such conclusion.was legitimate, since adultery is not in itself a ground; for separation. The chief anxiety of tho Archbishop appears to be lest such a large concession as was proposed would lead to an irresistible demand for a further concession of a much more serious character, namely, an extension of the list of grounds for divorce. This is not a baseless fear, for we have seen ovidences in our own country of a suppressed irritation against the neglect of :the law to become so elastic as to permit the dissolution, of every unhappy marriage. . '...'. - ■> ■'■ ■

The general feeling in Britain appears to be a recognition of the fact that the. present law—the procedure, that is to say—creates not merely hardships, but real 'injustices. For. it is manifestly an injustice that a social and. personal right which is provided by the law for- all should bo available only to those who can pay the heavy cost of tho machinery pro , vidod ■to give effect to that right. Wo have-on previous occasions expressed the opinion that to widen the door- to divorce can only produce evil results by weakening .the sanctity, of marriage and removing the strongest aid to right con'ducfc' amongst the married. Hardships ■ be; thore are undoubtedly many marriages which cannot under tho ;present,law.be dissolved at any price, but which could be dissolved with.;only the happiest results.,' At the if ■the law of divorce 1 were to proceed on the /lino that all really unhappy, marriages should be capable of. dissolution, we should yery speedily witness the disap.pearance of forbearance, continence, and self-sacrifice from the virtues of the matrimonial state, It is one thing, however, to demand a wider door: and quite another thing to insist on a-narrow door but a door to which all may havo equal, access. The second is a quite, legitimate demand, and it 13 the demand which Lord Gorell has made. Tho matter, wo believo, is to be made (ho subject of inquiry, and if the inquiry is as thorough as it should be, and embraces an investigation into the social effects of tho law of 1857, which in half a century, must have had-Borne definite and ascertainable effects; it should bo of , the utmost value to all civilised countries.