UNFAIR DIVORCE LAW.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 806, 2 May 1910, Page 7

UNFAIR DIVORCE LAW.

A CHURCH VJLBW. BIST REMEDY IS TO ABOHSH IT. Br Telosraph—Press Association—Oowrlieht London, April 29. The Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury rcßolved in favour. oftbe j repeal of the Divorce Act of 1557. The committee reported that the increased facilities for divorce .tended to increase immorality. The. present law favoured ~ the rich at the expense of the poor. The true remedy, added the report was to abolish divorce altogether. MARBJACE LAW: CttURCH AND STATE. "Dp tall the year 1857 the maitiage laws of Church and State in England were identical.' tn that year an 'Act of Parliament took sway from the Ecde-. siastical -Courts all - jurisdiction on ths subject of marriage, and conferred upon a Court speciaily created jurisdiction to grant divorces. lie canon' law of lie Church, however, has remained unaltered. It does not recognise divorce proper, but only such a form of separation as will 'enable tie parties to lino, apart w&hont being able to enter inta . any other marriage. The position of the Albican Church' in New Zealand as regards marriage and'divorce was stated some ten years ago by the bishops in the form of a! ' 'Declaration on Divorce and Remarriage'.", % The principle underlying this .denization (as stated by the Bishop of Auckland recently) is as follows

(1) That the Chmch of the Prorinea of New Zealand received Ha Constte taon on June 13. 1857. •

, (2) That at that ,timo tho remarriage of divorced persons was strictly forbidden in the Chuich of England.

(3) That the rule which prevailed at that time in the Church of England became the. rule of the Church of th« Province of New Zealar.il, and must continue so to be until such time as it shall be altered by Act of the General Synod....

11l giving evidence before the Boyal Commission, .which is now sitting in England to • inwsGgoto the divorce laws, including tho hardships of the poorer classes under ..the .existing law, Mr. E. E. Moore, barrister, said the difficulty of getting divorces . was due to the expense, which practically amounted .to a denial of the divorce laws to the very poor. Even if they had not to pay the Court fees it would still cost them-about £18 to. get a divorcee case through. He suggested thai in London there should be an official solicitor attached to each distinct of the. County Court or tho PoKoe Court, whose duty it should "be to investigate applications for leave to sue for divorce in forma pauperis; and in a proper ca«e to render the parties assistance in collecting the evidence and marshalling it before the Court. Ho would pve the judge who tried tie case authority to certify for the payment of the expenses of the witnesses out of the public purse. In London he would adhere to tho practice of trying divorce cases in the High Court, but outside London there ought to be some form of local courts and special district judges, whose duty it should bo to travel periodically a circuit and try the divorce cases. Those judges might be selected County Court judges; and ir the oouirtry, as in London, he would appoint an official solicitor. An appeal should lie from . those local Courts to the Divorce Division, and there should be power to remove a conjstry ease to tho High Court. .