Is Insanity a ground for Divorce ?

Southland Times, Issue 12022, 13 May 1892, Page 4

Is Insanity a ground for Divorce ?

Is insanity a ground for divorce ? This is the question incidentally raißed in the case of Hanbary versus Hanbury, which baa been decided in favour uf the pt>»itiont-r. The jury came to the conclusion th -t the plea of insanity— nrged on the respondent's behalf — was not made out, and ia coni-.o qnence thuy were relieved from :h wi » a ■ity of expressing any opioion ,^ >o whoi!:. i ■uch a plea, even if it could h ive Ken sutatantiated, would have been a bar to the demand of a wife for tbe separation from a lunatic husband. The facta of the case were hardly in dispute on either side. The Hanbury marriage geema to have been a fairly happy one at the outset. Husband and wife lived together comfortably enough for some time, and had several children. Later on Mr Hanbury took to drinking to exoeßS, and finally became go mad that be had to be confined in a lunatic asylum. Whether he went mad because he drank, or whether he drank because le waa out of hia mind, might be open to question. But there wag no doubt about the 'act tl.at whatever tbe cause mi^rht h' , lie wai> to t.ll intents and purpose a confirmed drunkard, whose excesses of intemperance were only interrupted when tbey became so acute as to necessitate his confinement aa a dnngerous lunatic. There was no gnioßaying the evidence, which sbowrd thht.ur.dur tie influence of drink, lie had treated h s wifo with great brutality,that ho had h e <-n tfui'ty Of immoral relations with other women under ng^ravated circnnManrep, w\ .hut be had comtnikted any miuv*er ot i tf run* whicb amply justified hia wife in dema; d ing the relief provided by the Divorce Court. Toe theory put forward on Mr Hanbury 's behalf was one of singular ingenuity. If we were to believe the medical witnesses called on this gentleman's behalf, he was an innocent snfferer from an hitherto ucrecognised malady, known in Paris— the aeat of its discovery — as lufolie circuliare. In as far as we can understand, thia recalled circular insanity furnishes a sort of statute of indemnity for all evils which have hitherto been attributed to intemperance. Dr. nk, according to 'thiß theory, dots not lead to madness, but madness le.da to drink. The fact that a man gets druok night after night until he has at lart to he confined in a strait-waistcoat and a padded room js proof of his suff • ring from some hereditary malady which compelled him lo resort to drink. The theory may be euuad in the abstract ; but commouplace people will persist in believing that when a man drinks to excess for yearn, and finally goes off his head, it is the d:ink which brought about tbe madness, not the tna<lnens which drove bim to drink. Mr Hanbury, accord. ing to the opinion of the jury, kn^-w perfectly well what he was abnut, and if ho he was aware that he ill-treated hi« unfortunate wife, and misconducted himself with other women, that he waa cffeLd'-jg against the rules of mora'ity as well as against the laws of tbe land ; and if this view ia correct— aa we believe it to b( — Mrs Hanbury waa legally entitled to demand the dissolution of her marriage. The resolt is very grrtifyicg in as far as this unfortunate lady is concerned ; but in the interest of tbe general prjblic we might wish that the jury could Lave cine to a contrary decision. If Mr Hat bury had been declared by the court to he insane,Hnd therefore not moraly rf spoosibh for hia actions, we should have t eec confronted with tbe wider and far more important if sue — whether insani y ia or h not an adequate ground of divo'c*. It is very difficult, as Sir Charles BuU pointed out in bis charge to the jury, to lay down any hard and fast line on this subject. Insanity differs not only in degree, but in kiud. Everybody must be acquainted wiih cases in which men and womtn, under the ptress of great grief or exceeei ye anxiety, or overpressure of work,have lost for a time their mental equilibrium. In such a case, where a cure may reasonably be expected.no fond wife or loving hasband would dream of seeking separation. Our Fy.tem of divorce is virtually a compromise between tho old-fashioned view that marriages were made in heaven and th« modern view th?t they are nothing more or less than social partnerships, terminable by mutual consent. We hold Btrongly that in the interest of society incompatibility of temper fhould not b t a ground for divorce, as it is in many Continentol countries ; but we hold not less strongly tbat, if either husband or wifa commits acts or contracts habits which render tbe marriage contract nul> and void the other party to the partnership should 1 c entitled to demand its diss.'ation as a matter of right, not of favour. Conviction of a criminal offence, imprisonment for any lengthened period, and permanent insanity, whether hereditary or brought on by culpable indulgence in vicious habits, ought Of themselves to be adequate cause for a divorce. In this — as in all other matters relating to matrimony— the question ia complicated by tbo necessity of providing for the children of the marriage. Yet,ev©n ' in their case, a father or mother permanently secluded from the world in a prison or a madhouse belongs to all intents, and purposes to the dead. The system under which a sane person may he bound for life ! to an insane husband or wife is almost B 9 j cruel for the children of the union as it rs I for their parents. What is needed «a I recognition of the broad principle fiat in the marriage contract, as in every jther of tbe kind, tbe incapacity of one partner to carry out the frgretment releases the other from any obligation to be bound by the compact. Whether in any particular instance this release ehould be carried into effect must depend on tbe individual judgment of the partner aggrieved. It is a crying scandal, however, tbat if a marriage h dissolved de facto by the insanity of either I husband or wife, it Kiould also not bedis- J solved de jure. Yef,if we read Sir Charloe ' Butt's judgment aright, it feems, lo say )' |f , least, doubtful wbether.if Mr H'.nbur- h 7* been declared ianane at the tirn«* *„/.„„ bis wife such grave came of v .. * . ins.ni.y would root h<v, 'TTo,'"" o ,'" from obtaining a d P or-> ' . P reclu<^ % r Starred union.-DaiW- n olv , ,n S th, » ,ii " _, Telegraph.