N.Z. Has No “Unholy Deadloch” Problem

Northern Advocate, 27 April 1940, Page 12

N.Z. Has No “Unholy Deadloch” Problem

V'EW ZEALAND is always breaking new records —whether it be in sport, taxation or spending—and the latest to topple is the divorce rate. For the first time we have topped the 1000 in a season, thus reaching the goal of every cricketer’s heart. But in this field there are no not outs —both parties are out, for keeps, the man carrying his bat and all his worldly possessions (except his alimony settlement), and the woman her lipstick and unused cradle. Supreme Court judges, who are the umpires, monotonously chant “Over” as one petition after another is disposed of in ever quickening time. Unions may be made in heaven, but in this land of freedom, may be dissolved in a place with a much less friendly atmosphere.

APPARENTLY the more prosperous we become the less we like our better halves, or was it that during the depression we could not afford the incidental to the untying of matrimonial knots? Whatever the cause, it seems that the divorce rate keeps in tune with the tempo of living standards. Here is a practical field for research on our own doorsteps, which our Communistic friends, who call themselves sociologists, might well pursue. If they could be persuaded to take a moral from the statistics by correlating cause and effect, it would serve at least to take their minds off Russia for a while, so that at least some good would emerge from what is undoubtedly a very great evil. * * * * QLD ENGLAND, still the land of the free, lags behind advanced New Zealand when it comes to the land of the freed. A gentleman, yclept A. P. Herbert, has been trying to put that right, by his advocacy of quicker and easier divorce. The Private D confesses that for a while he doubted the bona fides of this pamphleteer, believing him to be a bachelor in his own rights, or a childless crank, poking into business which did not concern such as he. But reference to “Who’s Who” showed that Herbert is qualified by experience to have some say in the matter of who should be whose. The entry after the author of “Unholy Deadlock’s” name revealed: M, 1914, Gwendolen, 2nd d of late Henry Qufter, one s, toee d.”

GO Herbert has been fighting other people’s battles with the purpose of making it as easy for private contracts to be dissolved as it is for international agreements these days (Italy always excepted). It is hardly likely that the English man of decrees will be invited to lecture over the New Zealand commercial network, as it would be a case of preaching to the converted. How he has maintained the solidarity cf his own domestic life is revealed by a further entry in “Who’s Who,” showing his recreations to be: “sailing, lawn tennis, the piano and skittles." You cannot picture a devotee of Skittles as complainant, or respondent, much less co-respondent, in divorce proceedings, Again, Herbert claims membership of only three clubs, among which are the “Savage” and the “Beefsteak.”

The Inside .fiery

YUHAT a lot of uneconomic effort, ’ not to speak of benzine, parents' electricity and wedding presents—is wasted when we consider that seven out of every 100 of our marriages end in a stay-out strike! Hours, sometimes years of courtship, fizzle out in a fat lawyer’s bill and the right to do it all over again, with —perhaps—better results. Apparently it is in the fourth year—when Hubby insists on putting his feet on the mantelpiece and Fair Lady on joining up again with the old bridge eight—that difficulties appear on a definite scale. Marital trouble then reaches its zenith between the fifth and tenth years of marriage.

VOW, if we are going to be purely mercenary about such matters—and the fact that we have so many divorces indicates that quite a large proportion of us cannot lay claims to deeper motives —why not give our young newly-weds something to look forward, to? If golf and tennis, apart altogether from the cardinal duty to one another in preserving the standard of living, make the rearing of young New Zealanders unattractive as a family tie, why not increase the stakes for connubial felicity? After all, we are a sporting people. Look at the tote investments'in war time! * * * * VOW, the Private D’s suggestion is this. Let us enrich the social life of such couples by advancing the celebration period. For instance, why wait 50 years for a golden. wedding? Have it after the fifth year. Let us extend the “easy money” principle by cashing in on the diamond wedding after the tenth year. Thenceforward it is not so necessary to have landmarks at which to aim, because when | privately-registered unions survive j that long, reconciliation of tempera- j ments becomes comparatively simple, j Supreme Court figures prove it. ■