DIVORCE CASES IN ENGLAND.

Timaru Herald, Volume X, Issue 389, 17 February 1869, Page 3

DIVORCE CASES IN ENGLAND.

[From the Daihj Telegraph, Nov. 3.] To- morrow the Divorce Court recommences its sittings with no fewer than two hundred and one cases upon the list for hearing. This seems a terrible crop to reap m one year's evil harvest from the social field. Two hundred and one English homes proclaim their own domestic misery ; bring out under the public gaze their shattered household gods; make common property of their i ost sacred sorrows ; and demand that the husband, or the wife, as the case may lip, shall be branded l-y the " Queen's justice," with that which " takes off the rose from the fair forehead of an innocent love, and sets a blister there." The first impression, upon hearing such a fact, must be one of surprise and despondency. Is this the land where the " home" is the temple — where the hearth, the altar, and the fair fidelities and graces of married life and Religion are such as to win the envy of all tiie world ? Can this, indeed, be England, where even the Sovereign is held most Royal for her perfect wifeliness and tender motherhood ? Will they not point the finger at us m countries which we have hitherto condemned for looseness of morality, when such a list comes forth as the budget of English impurity for one season ? The fact is of a nature to revive those earnest and conscientious objections which were made to the establishment of the Divorce Court m the first instance. But, at least the existence of that Court, is a subject which cannot be opened again for discussion. However long may be the, catalogue of those cases that appear to " make marriage vows as false as dicers' oaths," the institution of a tribunal m which the offences could be investigated was wise and good. The tenacity with which Roman Catholics and their High Church imitators have always clung to the theory that marriage is an indissoluble act, had, we allow, its noble aspect. So far as the idea was maintained to reinforce the spirit of faithful wedded love, and to deter society from the fatal temptation of easy divorces, it was an honorable and worthy view. But the Romish hierarchy were never single-minded on the subject ; they had to regard marriage both as a sacrament and a contract ; and the religious necessities of their position have alwaj'S weighed more with them than social utilities. Yet, even with the sisserfion "that man could not put ussunder what God had joined," it was always found needful to give to the Pope a power of dissolving ill-assorted unions. Few persons, of course, could obtain a Bull ; and, therefore, the mischief was practically such as existed under our own system, when a divorce was to be had only after a most expensive and long process before the House of Lords. But it was idle to proclaim thar to be an indissoluble and divine bond which had never been sanctioned by Heaven, or consecrated by the real religion of the heart. In the face of notorious facts, it was futile to protest that the ceremony of marriage could stand as the one irreversible act of life. If something was taken from the force of that ceremony when the law gave a remedy to those who had been grievously outraged and wronged m their wedded life, on the other hand more sanctity than ever was attached to the personal vow, and more responsibility, along with greater freedom, was laid upon the conscience. The Divorce Court did not alter the English law, which has always regarded marriage as a civil contract, specially referred to the blessing and favour of Heaven. It gave a wider and more ready gateway of escape to those who found their civil compact intolerable ; but it never meddled, or could meddle, with the oaths made before God. Man puts asunder what man joined ; but no Court can clear the guilty soul from the sin of its broken promise, nor acquit of duty the perjured wife or husband, whose wickedness m each case adds new scandal to a deplorable list. The Divorce Court is the register of ruin and sin, but not m any way its encouragement. It has brought to the surface the tainted blood of the social body ; and, though the study of the disease is most painful, the change was logical, necessary, and beneficial for morality, while it has dignified the invisible bond of' marriage by not pretending to confuse the unions which truth and fidelity make indissoluble with those which begin m false vows and end m disgrace and wretchedness. Herein is the worst aspect of the long catalogue of broken nuptial compacts. The shameful list does not owe its length to the existence of the Divorce Court; for the genuine contract of hands and hearts is not affected by the sham and hollow unions dissolved. Such a cause-lift is sad because it shows how frequently marriage is contracted without the deep feelings, and free promises of mutual love, which afford the real and lasting consecration to weiided lift*. In this melancholy roll of ruined households we have the inevitable record of the frivolity, cupidity, and levity with which it is too much the fashion of our time to act m the most important crisis of life. That which has ended so badly will, m most cases, be found to have also begun ill. j These unhappy persons whose intolej rable position obliges or persuades them i to lay bare their domestic grief to the '■ public have usually themselves to blame. In the Divorce Court we see the end of those matches which are arranged by

Belgravian mothers with an eve to j everything before the holy and nappy ( purpose of wedded life. We see there the issue of the selfish scheming by which the "girl of the period" snares the '' man of the period " with charms as false and artificial as her modesty and maidenliness. We are taught there how it answers to put position and bankers' balances before honest love and high character. "To this complexion come the brides who " paint an inch thick," and the bridegrooms who interrupt a career of debauchery, and rid themselves of turf debts, by the mercenary expedient of a good match. The marriages of wealthy age with unwilling but ambitious youth and beauty — the marriages which should not have dared to ask God's blessing on their base incentives — the marriages, not now m the higher ranks alone, which are put miserably asunder because God never really joined and never was sincerely besought to join the wretched pair — meet m the Divorce Court, and contribute to the )itiful catalogue. Here is the year's lurvest ot loveless unions, and jaded, hopeless travesties of that which should be the sweet and joyous treat}' of souls. If the harvest is large, it is because the vice of disregarding the deepest sanctities and purest joys of life is widespread, reaching up to the very highest and down to the very meanest. The list affords the measure of that wretched unf'aitli m humau destinies which makes men and women intrigue for social standing and luxuries, when natural happiness and glad lives, leading to holy deaths, are better and more eternal things. Or it may be taken to illustrate that gross and dry material calculation which, among' the middle and lowermiddle classes, so often brings two people into union on the hollow and essentially terminable footing 1 of a business partnership. The seed is widely sown which makes this ugly crop spring up, and so far it is a mournful gathering of mildewed sheaves ; but the most hallowed and highest relation of life is not held m lower reverence by the people at large, because the Divorce Court is open to part asunder, at the price of public shame, the hands that met without any meeting of the hearts. Indeed, such a list of cases for one winter session ought to have its lesson for the whole community. The Divorce Court will not replace m their original positions the unhappy wives and husbands who seek its relief. It is a great deal better end wiser to reflect beforehand how bitter a thing it is to trifle with the serious matters of living, than to find it out when there is no other remedy than to allege or confess vice or cruelty. Let the Divorce Court still sit, let it still righteously and carefully put asunder the wronged from the wronger, m the poor and unsatisfactory way at preseut allowed, the " corespondents" who play " Diomed " to unions arranged by " Lord Pandarus of Troy." But side by side with the Court we want another purifying and correcting power. We require that a new and earnest spirit should inspire society, urging upon the young, by example and precept, the momentous import of this act of life m regard to their present and their future destiny. As the Spartans pointed to the reeling Helot, and made their children ashamed of drunkenness, so should such a list as that with which we are now concerned be employed- to warn those who are entering upon life against the fatal mistake of a rash or heartless marriage. Neither poverty, nor daily toil, nor misfortune, nor sickness, nor obscurity, can deprive any man and woman of the chief felicity o) existence, who join hands m mutual affection and perfect, fidelity of purpose, to make their marriage one of heart and thought. The law of nature is equally tender and powerful. There will be fallings out, trials, weaknesses on both sides; but, if the union began m honest love, and that grave and serious sentimeut which such a step demands, then the gentle force of custom and daily intercourse, aided by pure memories, blends the pair together. To such a home may come sorrow or trouble, but never the bitter shame and the cruel shattering of the household gods. If avarice, or mere passion, Or lack of proper sobriety of mind and earnestness of promise, dictate or attend the commencement of the troth, possible disappointment and certain disgrace will punish those who falsely plight it. Here are two hundred and one instances m proof. They are not enough to make us anxious about the moralit) of the land, nor sorry that the Divorce Court exists ; but they are enough to shame the cj'nical and mercenary fashions of the time, and to point a deep, significant warning to the youth of our country.