"STRATFORD EVENING POST” THURSDAY, OCTOBER, 3, 1929. DIVORCE AND PUBLICITY.

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 15, 3 October 1929, Page 4

"STRATFORD EVENING POST” THURSDAY, OCTOBER, 3, 1929. DIVORCE AND PUBLICITY.

JIIE alarming growth of divorce m (Treat Britain is likely to be the subject of questions in the House of Commons, accordcablegram to-day. It has~ been calculated that the divorces for 1029 will number o()()0, a figure which i s four iunes greater than that of 1914. Undoubtedly one of the primary causes of tin’s large increase is He “secret divorce” that lias been brought about by the Judies.] Proceedings Act. This Act ■which prohibits the' publication of all evidence in divorce suits, I has prevented collusion and conspiracy from being detected, because the most deadly antidote to these deceits is publicity, and the King’s Proctor has relied to a great extent for the detection of collusion ym communications from readers. Under the present law there has been such a wave o?' obviously collusive evidence that case after case has been rejected, but nerjurv is not easily detected when no reuort of the proceedings is permitted. Eor instance. one of the best known actresses in England obtained a divorce that would never have been granted if the Press, had not been muzzled, and if she had not been able To conceal her identity and her stage name. In case after case that has called aloud for (further inquiry the petitioners, have walked away with a decree that lias been obtained by flagrant perjury- Some of this peijury is detected, of course, but detection is merely the exception that proves the rule- There was the case of a petitioner who wilfully gave false] evidence that within a month of bis mai'iiage his wife had said she would not live with him, whereas he had deserted his wife and had been ■ guilty of adultery. In another case, a man who had been tbrou<>h the divorce court at _ Jea.sk once, married the petitioner, with whom he lived for lour weeks, and then deserted inn, The judge, in emphasising these fads’, said that their publication m ioht be a warning to women. Unfortunately, the divorce H makes the publication of sum facts almost impossible, and con sequently encourages acts. such as those of the respondent m the ease under notice ■_