DIVORCE LAWS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 800, 25 April 1910, Page 4

DIVORCE LAWS.

EVIDENCE. BEFORE THE ROYAL - COMMISSION, v.;. vTTOGES; ON : .EQtrALITY;''6E^SEXBS. .Many interesting views regarding the l aw divorce hayo been extracted beforo .- tho: Royal Commission'.ioii- Divorce, from authorities no-;i«sVtli':ui-" the two: j'idgos of the. Divorce ' Diyisio'h' itself— namely, 'Sir; '.Jbhii^' jBginand", 3Tr. Jus;tice Ba'i^Kive^lj^iiclj 1 Sir John .Bigham said: "While admitting that equality is extremely desirable and shonld be as far .as possible maintained .between rich and poor, I would point out that absolute equality is quite impossible.' .The Hell person liixs 1 a purse very best counsel and to obtain, the yory best evidence'. ■ Unless you are going to put tho public purse" at-the-service of the Mf ' you cannot put the poor in that respect on an.equality with the rich.' .

~' r At the; samo time,l j think! attempts might la), made., in theirection of securing equality by. -iqcai'courtsr.being used where a poor person is. unable to bring his case tof'the High' Court in Tendon.' In my opinion tbo ITigli Court is the. right court for the .termination of all suits- of. divorce. . Butwith regard to the evidence, I thiiik provision might be made by 'which" the "evidence might be given before either- the jiidge' of. tho county : c6urfr,.va ' magistrate, or . even a' registjrar .of a county court, , and. -the .evideicii •.might' the '■ *<®jn t and :;sent -■ to- London o.e, used -at ■ jthp bearing of-, the case. With, the- depositions the person taking the .'evidence •_ might, send any bbservnfcionho thought fit to' "make. 1; do not think that'method 'is :nearly asjgood as haying tlio witnesses before 'the court.: At - the'same tiine, '. it ; would assist very poor people their "oaSes.-heard at less cast. : tiling, that poor- people might bo allowed to prove the facts by affidavit." '. • m

What is Cruelty? " ■ ■ ■Be_ thought it .desirable; .that thero 'should'.be- one- standard oil; which cases were, judged.... If the i jurisdiction were entrusted to the count? ' courts spread ever ,England they would have an infinity of l different by which the reJ le f was administered. Some men thought 'the 'leafet :'violence amounted to' sufficient cruelty to justify, in- connection with mis;conduct, a divorce; Other, men. thought differently,, and that cruelty ought to be something like tho cruelty which :it wae necessary to -prove in the ,o]d days—in the days of the Ecclesiastical C ourts.,- A jury .might .be • told. in general terms what kind of cruelty they bad to find , against the 'husband before they could say ;he. had. been, guilty .of 'cruelty in : the eyes of the 'law.'- But the juries' disregarded wKat they were told; and if .they thought there ought to be a divorce for other reasons'they found there had been cruelty. ; ■;';; : K has ' been shggestod that-the misconduct of the 'petitioner should not be a bar. .. ■If . that were so. you think:it<would = tend'to:remove the present desire of petitioners to keep, back the facts? . • '..

. "Sir - John Bigh'am: .1 have ,a -strong opinion -whiphi may.'shock some people, but misconduct 'ought, not to deprive;-ex-ceptin serious cases, either the husband •or"the'wife from' petting relief;' -* '■< .The witness..would.not give relief to a man who habitually--lived in open'misconduct, but, looking at it from the man's point, of view, 'he did not'think that in the ;cqurw of ■ twenty; jeai , s'.;inarned life if a. man had once made a slip that that totake away his right to separate himself from vai.dissolute and 'bad-living woman. It did afc prosoilt,'*or at ' all .eyents . it was' obstacle.

• Sex Equality.--believed'/the .'law- relating to judiadminis- ■ terod in, London. >.-'Bjit:>he' behoved these proceedings wore often instituted -:byi an .anpy.;.woman—he^^did-.-nptsay ;she had not .cause., to irers 'obtained., hastily,; QUences.'whichttfie women themselves 6aw' , before, long,:. The . husband- left the 'home . S iruinorality; ensued. He thotight, the, magistrate. ought to hesitate before separating: a'man and'bis' wife. 1 Answering-Sir George: White, the witness said that if they: could get rid of unnk. .the-.;doors:- of 'divorce' courts 'might' almost-be, closed. •■;. .also ;a judge in the Divorcb;.Adiuira].tj\ and Pro--ob.# . .9!"s>on re . .said .':,;K thought the - I . v °r? e *^) v V6bould'''be', for I ?tlie pljor as milch*-as for .the richj; - tlhey re-quiredvit.-as much as' the ; 'rich ,; did. ■-. At present: poor people were : abfeol6tely: barred irom the courts , unless they lived in London. People sometimes saved up for years in-order to get: the'.-money to bring ■ a suit for divorce, and; in..;that period tney were ; m the position of •being neither married, por ciiiestion, of uivorce '.for-*thepoor; must - mean local courts.i -rhey'could..not; bring-'themto ■London;., .-^Witlu,regard;!to -expense ; there might vory^ejusily,_bej,ecoripmyr in .court fees. He opposed "separation orders 'altobelieving.;.. they 'led .to' ■ irhmorality.Ti separaHonT.wa's. to be granted at all itvshould,-be, .temporary to see if time, and'-other- circumstances . might P, n °S them .together..again.. He thought that three months at the outside should the - limit allowed for, a, separation, alter;;which.-a' further'application. should bo necessary.' •' '" 'reswd-' to-'tlie 'relative position the •witness thought that'they •'should be the same.-He. didrno t-: see.: ho w.' misconduct was more unmoral on .one side than the other.; He- would -make-desertion fpr fouryears an absolute, ground' for divorce.. He was veryaverse to •. separating peoplo without giving them the Tight to marry again, and he*thought there 'should,be a right ~to-divorce, in. a case .where a man ;ol' woman ; committed ,'acrime was sentenced to. peflaJ;.'servitu(le„for.' five years or .upwards/ ' •''A's';,tp' druhkeiineCnio' T M 'not' believe ;th6fe'- waS i ';siioh' i la ' ihing';, 6*. hopeless . nabituaL - drunkenness;- - He ''Vouid treat' drunkenness ns.'d. crime, :'and'the punish-1 ment should be- such that people must give it up. He would not have. such, a thing"as separation. "Separation is' a living, death. , ; It is wrong, altogether." Childless Homes. reply 1 to .the,' Archbishop' of York, tile w'itness said hp.'.thought-'.the divorce ,iaw;.had weakened the.,binding force of the marriage, ho. .In; tho old days people did not/marry witho.ut . great care and thought. - Now. they'took the risk, thinklilg. they, could get rid of, .each other. The bulk of the people who came there were- the very poor and the moderately rich. " Do. a very large number, of'cases oocur alter a considerable period of marriage?— Yes,, I think so. It is difficult to come to any real conclusion- about it. .1 may say I, beliove that one of ~the reasons which leads- to :divorce is the' absence ofchildren:. I '.took up" one' of 'my notebooks y'eSeiday. haphazard/ 'It was- for the year 1908, arid Regan on. May 11. I took:'it t6 the-end of 'the year, and found-, that I tried 187 undefended cases between those months. In- eighty-seven of them there were no children; iii fortythroe there was one child; in thirty-five there were two children; in twolvo there vere three, children; in two cases there were four children; in , two cases five children, and i'nv'two cases six children. My impression is that it is a very seri- . otis question this nbsence ■■ of children from -married life, and I believo you will find that if thore are children it'keeps the .home, together. When, there are no children the nome is no longer tho home it ought to, be. ; That -would hardly account'for the great, number of cases coming eight) or ton. years' after marriage;. It has been .suggested to me . that at tliat timo the 'greatest strain- comes on tho. poorer Sasses,and they tried- to drown _ their troubles in alcohol?—Ye 1 ?, and'-it .-is'becoming . more:, so' every : year,-, one reason being-that-the-parents .are not allowed to, let their children earn anything.. Reckless" Marriages..' 1 Lord Gorell -asked 'if -.the. witness had considered .whether . anything . could! bo done; to check, improvident ;and reckless marriages between young -people/ which, lhc ; - witness would -. probably "agree,- were a frequent causa of- cases in tho Divorce Court. . .

Sir J.,Bigham: I don't know any way to prevent them.

Tho Archbishop of York inquired as to tho class of tho community from which tho parties in divorce cases wero chiclly drawn. Sir J. Bigham: The popular view is that the.-Divorce Court is busy with the affairs of tho rich, because the newspapers report these cases and the public, ■form their, impressions on what they see in (ho newspapers. , It is a mistake. 1 don't think that the morality of the rich is any worse than the morality of other classes. •

Sir George Lewis was the next witness. Ho said he liad been in legal practice for iit'ty-four. years, and his experience • covered 1 thousands of cases in the Divorce Court. For thirty years he had been agitating for an amendment of the law to give divorce—equally to husband or misconduct, desertion, cruelty, lunacy, and imprisonment for five years. '■ Lord Gorell: Is it your opinion • that singlo misconduct should be open to either party as ft ground for divorce? Sir George Lewis: Yes. I see no reason why there should be any difference between husband and wife. Publication of Divorce Reports. -; Asked his. view regarding the divorce laws and poor people, Sir <3."Lewis said: It is a shocking position; there is no divorce for them as the law now stands, because the poor have not the means to come to 'the-Divorce Court in Londn. • "Do you think that publication of reports of divorce cases," Lord Gorrell also asked, "has any deterrent effect upon tho commission of the original offence?" Sir G. Lewis: No, I don't; I have not seen, any difference in tho number of cases heard in the Divorce Court.

, "Have you found in. your experience," Lord Guthrie asked, "that women are ready on small provocation to rush to the Divorce Court?

; Sir G.' Lewis: Certainly not. by the Arcnbishop of.York, Sir G.' Lewis said his experience was chiefly among the wealthier classes. But he had had pitiful and shocking cases brought to his notice.''and out of his own pocket he had obtained divorces for poor people; they were, however, not woriaugclass peoplo, but mostly- girls who had obtained their living as - chorus girls or dancers, and so forth..

•Finally, Sir George Lewis said his experience was that there was very little cofliision in the Divorce Court.

Separation Orders. • Mr. John Eose, ; magistrate at .the Tower Bridge Police Court, affceed that the present tribunal was not'accessible to the poor. . What effect. do you. think . separation orders have- had -on morality -It, is im : 'possible -to do rnone than ' speculate! Separation orders have their good sideand also their bad. j My experience , is that, with parties-in' the class of-life I am dealing with, immorality almost in-., variably follows on the, part the. man and not infrequently on the part of the woman. '

Eor the sake of consistency, (Mr: Eose further, said)' London, county courts, as' well as provincial county courtsj must have jurisdiction in divorce. But it might bo desirable' to have only one county court taking all divorce cases in London; .that would give uniformity of practice, . and:' there would certainly be enough work for one county court judge in London. ; . .

Is it. your experience that the working classes, are at all indifferent iiotv to the permanence'of the marriage tie?— They are. by.no means indifferent. ■ There is a jffflty wide'distinction. between.-a certain set in society and the. poorer. classes in that respect.. . , .■ ,

Breach of Promiso Actions. , "I think," said Mr/ Pickstone, County Court .Registrar. of Bury, "that actions for breach of. promise. of marriage. ought to bo abolished. -.Thp matter a direct bearing on divorce'; numerous marriages take plaoe oii the compulsion of an action tor breach of promise.' I have seen some of thom myself." ) • Sir Lewis Bibden: You mean an action for breach of promiso leads to compulsory, marriage with consequent difficulties? —lido; .misery on .bottf sides..' .' . ; The witness said that separation orders could be .divided into' tiro ,main; classes! applications by very young women ' and those, by 'elderly women. Tlie' latter rarely asked- for maintenance; they 'were glad:' to "get '• rid: of .their husbands, who aid nob maintain them, and were in fact (jetting past' work, and' look' .to. their grown-up children for ■ support. Mrs. Tennant said that seemed a most remarkable picture of..working-class life.