DIVORCE LAWS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 154, 27 December 1912, Page 3

DIVORCE LAWS

REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION MAJOEITY FOB MORE LATITUDE. A CHURCH MINORITY. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, 16th November. No social document in late years has been awaited with so much interest and «xpecfcation as the report of the Royal Commission eefc up three years ago to consider the divorce question. It has been expected week by week for months pact, and now it has appeared there is already a etorm of difference over its terms. The only point of general agreement is that women and men ought to be on a more equal footing in the eye* of the law. The report favours a considerable widening of the grounds of divorce, Much in the direction taken by the laws of Australasia; but there is a strong memorial signed by a minority of three, viz., the Archbishop of York, Sir Lewis Dibdin, and Sir William Arson , which may fairly be taken to 'represent the views of the Church of England. Dealing first with the majority report, it ie signed by Lord Gorell (ex-president of. the Divorce Court), Lady Frances BaJfonr, Mr. Thomas Bnrfc, M.P., Lord Guthrie (a Scottish Judge), Sir Frederick Treves, Judge TindaT- Atkinson, Mrs. Harold Tennant (formerly an inspector of factories), Mr. Edgar Brierley, and My. J. A. Spender. EQUALITY SF THE SEXES. The majority consider that the sexes should be qmie on an equal footing, and that divorce should be obtainable on the following grounds ;— < 1. Adultery. 2. Desertion lor three years and upwards. 3. Cruelty. 4. Incurable insanity after five years' confinement. 6. Habitual drunkenness, found incurable after .thr*e years from a first order of separation. 6. Imprisonment under a, commuted death sentence. The majority is supported by the minority as regards the equality of the aexee, but the minority is strongly against any extension of the grounds of divorce, and ifc will only support th© majority in grounds (*) and («) of the foHowiztg schedule on which the majority considers marriage fifarald be declared 'null and void— (a) Of unsound mind. (b) Of epilepsy and recurrent, insanity. (c) Of specific diseases. (d) When a woman is in a condition which renders marriage a fraud < open the' husband. ' («) Of wilful lefußal to perform the duties of marriage, The majority believes that Judges slioald hear divorce cases without a jury, and that persons of small income' should be able to get their cases tried without coming to London. They are strongly of opinion that th« publication of report* of cases shoirid be restricted, and that there should be no publication until the conclusion of a case. TWO DEFINITIONS. Here are two important definitions ! agreed to by all the memb-- of the Commission*— "Cruelty ia anch cop- one • married person to the - lakes ft" unsafe, having *ega:ra.«^ th^riak, of lifey limb or beaHh, bodi/y or mental, for the latter to continue to live •tfith'-the former. "' An inebriate ' .means a person ■who habitually takes or uses any intoxicants, and wirile under the influence of such intoxicants or in consequence of the effects, is at times (a) daflgorous' to lnmsell or dangerous and a cause of terror to others; or (b) a cause pi serkms harm or suffesing to members of his family or others; or (c) incapable of managing himself or < his affairs. (The expression intoxicant is to include any intoxicant liquor or sedative, narcotic, or stimulating drug or preparation.)" The majority strongly object to any Police Court separation. In fact, the whole Commission seem agreed that divorce is a matter for tho superior courts, though there should be sittings throughout the country, instead of merely at London. ERSESUMiNG DEATH. ' The Commission recommends • that presumption of death should be allowed whero one party has been continually absent from the other for seven years, and shall not have been known to be living, and also where ifc can merely be demonstrated that there is reasonable ground for. supposing death. Neglect by the husband to provide reasonable maintenance for the wife and her in- i faot children, for whom he is legally liable, is recommended as a new ground <A divorce. As regards; null marriages, it is suggested that Where one party is of unsound mind or incipiently unsound, and the malady manifest itself within six months, then the other party, having been ignorant of this at the time of marriage, may apply for divorce. Epilepsy and recurrent insanity, which has been concealed from the other party, is similarly recommended as a ground, »8 well as the existence of a specific disease in a communicable form. British subjects domiciled in England, but residing elsewhere in the Empire, whose cases have been tried within the Empire, may have the decree fegistered in England, and if it is made m grounds which would hold good in ingland, it will be operative in this jountry. JURIES AND PUBLICITY. -Not only is it suggested that Judges abno should hear divorce cases, but very radical powers are proposed to be siven to Judges to prevent the proceedbigs _ being published in cases where it is in the interests of decency and morality that they should not be published, and in any case it is suggested that there should be no publication at all until the close of the case; and it is to be made contempt of Court to , publish " pictorial representations, whether produced from photographs, drawings, or otherwise, of parties^ witleases, or others' concerned in divorce md matrimonial cases." CONSERVING? THE FAMILY. Now we come to the convictions of the minority, which ate very cogently expressed in & document which ha« evidently taken much thought in preparation. The minority points out that in the United States, where the prevalence of divorce is said to be notorious, the law is much on the lines suggested by ;he majority of the Commission. "It is jbvioue," the minority write, "that the multiplication of facilities for dissolving an unsuccessful marriage will not tend to climiaish the recklessness with which ■marriage is contracted. It is significant that no witness has been able to tell us ->( a country where, as the result of jrester facilities for divorce, public morality- has been promoted, the tie* of family strengthened, and home life ntade pufer and more settled." H The minority is convinced that there jg no demand on the part of the poor for

divorce on other grounds than those of misconduct. "No doubt," the report says, "there is a section in our large towns in which the moral standard is deplorably low, but no one who reads the evidence can fail to 6ee that ho change in the lawa would effect a remedy. . . , One of the most striking features of the evidence of those familiar with _ the poorer classes is an 'almost unanimous opinion that they treat the ,law .of divorce as a matter which is beyond their reach and act as if it did not exist, with direct consequencee of which it is lamentable to hear." A RESERVATION, ON CRUELTY. The minority does not wholly agree with the definition of . cruelty. They say :— "A blow in one class of life is not the nnforgivablfi injury it might b© in another; a frankness of sarcastic speech that would be .regarded as' injurious to mental health in one family might be the daily practice of another, and regarded as an agreeable characteristic By themselves and their - friends. The definition v of cruelty we are invited to adopt would inevitably promote collusive suits, and might lead to divorce being granted to parties ' who woUld afterwards, bitterly regret ' the temper in which they had put the law into forea" The minority considers it a retrograde step- to grant divorce on the ground of insanity when it is not granted for paralysis, and it considers that drunkenness considered as a disease is likely 1 to prove amenable to treatment. Moreover it regards a life sentence commuted as not distinctly different from a sentence of fifteen years. It contends that if the majority is right in its recommendations then "it would logically follow that divorce should be permitted when the man and wife cease to love one another." . . . The real danger is of creating a habit of mind which sees no discredit in divorce. The majority proposal would lead the nation to a downward decline, on which it would be vain to expect to stor> halfway. The result would be practically to abrogate the principle of monogamous life union. "OUR STRENGTH IS THE HOME." "The family is threatened by two forces ; (1) the assertion of individual liberty; (2) the claims of logical Socialism, which contends thai the family stands in the way of the solidarity of the State. Much of the evidence given on behalf of eugenics follows the same line. Even in our own country there is the, growing reluctance to accept the natural' consequence of marriage ; the rearirig of children. Then there is the increasing restlessness of modern life, all tending to break up the family. Our contention is that ' the State should maintain and not relax the standard of its marriage law." The minority does agree, though, that some. restraint on the .present. freedom of adults to contract .marriage without regard to conditions of health or ability to maintain a family may be practicable. '