DIVORCE LAW REFORM

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 32, 7 August 1923, Page 3

DIVORCE LAW REFORM

EQUALITY OF SEXES

MATRIMONIAL BILL PASSES

THIRD READING

BIG MAJORITY.

(mOM OBR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

LONDON,. 15th June.

By 257 votes to 26, the House of Commons passed the third reading of the Matrimonial Causes Bill, its fortunes in the House of Lords are believed to be secure; and before long we may expect to see it law..' A wife will then be able to obtain a divorce upon the same grounds as a husband can—that is, by proving misconduct alone; it will no longer be necessary for her, in addition, to prove cruelty or desertion. Major Entwistle, who introduced the measure, has the distinction of being the first private member to get a Bill through the House during the present session. There was considerable opposition to the proposal, although it was stronger vocally than numerically. The Bill was backed by Mrs. Wintringham, Lady Astor, Sir John Simon, Mr. Pringle, Mr.. Shakespeare, and Mr. Graham.

-After an ineffectual attempt had been made by Mr. D. Herbert (Conservative M.P. for Watford) to get the Bill referred back to Committee, .Major Barnett moved an amendment providing that the Court should not deprive the husband of the custody or control of children merely by reason of his single act of misconduct, unless the Court considered him "a bad lot." it was sufficient punishment, said the gallant member, for him to be deprived of the society of his wife; to deprive him of his children would be too severe. Mr. Herbert also supported the amendment, on the ground that the children should not lose a father's care because of a single act committed in circumstances which called for forgiveness. However excellent a mother might i be, eaid Sir F. Banbury, it was essential that the father should have control of the education of his boys. But Major Entwistle and Dr. W. A. Chappie protested that the proposal -would wreck the Bill, and on a division it was defeated by 172 votes to 25. ALIMONY FOR THE HUSBAND. Nothing daunted, Mr. Herbert moved anolher amendment giving the Court power to order alimony to be paid by a wife for the benefit of a husband, just as now it I||<. power in respect of alimony paid by a husband to a wife. On the plea of equality between the sexes, Mr. Thorpe, who seconded, insisted that there was no reason why a guilty wife's property _ should not be placed in the same position as that of a guilty husband. The matter is outside the scope of the Bill and also unnecessary, complained Major Entwistle. Sir F. Banbury declared himself an old-fashioned person who had always believed in the inferiority of women, but now that women had even entered the House of Commons, why should not a woman be in the same position as a man as regards alimony? When the amendment went to a division it was defeated by 148 votes to 65. RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION. Better fortune befell the amendment, moved by Mr. Herbert, to prevent an act of misconduct committed before the passing of the Bill to be a cause for divorce. He did not relish the idea of divorce suits being founded on misconduct of twenty years ago. There was a great deal of argument over this retrospective provision, but eventually it was accepted by Majo» Entwistle with the proviso that "nothing contained therein shall affect or take away any right of any wife existing immediately before the passing of this Act." The still persistent My. Herbert came forward with yet another amendment much to the obvious disgust of Viscountess Astor, whose Liquor Bill wag second on the Order Paper. Time was slipping on, and as the prospects of getting to the Liquor Bill became smaller, Lady Astor grew more fidgety, until at last Mr. Herbert complained. "I was never more patient in my life," expostulated Lady Astor, and when the Speaker had asked her to restrain herself and Mr. Herbert to come to his point, the real debate got going again. BAD AND IMMORAL MEASURE. Mr. Blundell (Conservative, Ormskirk) regarded the Bill as a bad and immoral measure, and likely to have a deleterious effect on the public morals of the country. He would not attempt to explain the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the question of marriage, except to say that it took the view that when men and women repeated the marriage vow they meant what they said, and should not be influenced by the laws of the county in which they happened to live. This Bill was an attempt to enforce an artificial equality where no equality existed in nature. It might be that Parliament could make women bear arms, but it could not make men bear babies. There was the fundamental difference between " the sexes, and no amount of legislation would alter it. The Bill provided an easy way of procuring collusive divorce suits. The social stig° ma attaching to a man who committed adultery was no longer what it was, and was not to be compared with that attaching to a woman. BLOW TO OUR NATIONAL GBEATNESSj The Rev. H. Dunnico (Labour M.P., Durban) was another who opposed the Bill because it took away that differentiation of treatment which every judicial law should allow. An act of adultery by a man wag not as grave in its consequences as such an act by a woman. The mother occupied a place in the home that the father did not hold, and the home revolved about her. A married woman occupied a privileged position, and could conceal an act of adultery as a man could not. She could I bring into her home the fruits of her I sin, and the husband might cherish and ; maintain throughout his lifo the child of | another man._ That was a cruel and | abominable situation. His chief objec- ; tion to the Bill was that it was the first i step in a campaign to make a dissolui tion of the marriage tie easier in this countrj'. Whatever tended to do that would deal a latal blow to the very f oun- ! dation of our national greatness and to j the fabric of the home. This country, I with all its faults, defects, and short- | comings, was the best country in the ■ world, and the real secret of its greatness ■ was that in no other land did the home, i and what it stood for, play so huge a part in shaping national character. He believed the Bill to be unnecessary; it [ would do infinitely more harm than I good; it was a retrogressive step towards making a dissolution of the mar- j riago tie easier; and it reduced the holy sacrament of marriage to a mere commercial transaction.

When the House divided on the motion for the third reading, as already stated, there was tho large maiority of 257 votes to 26.