The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 7, 1910. DIVORCE, MARRIAGE, AND EUGENICS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 811, 7 May 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 7, 1910. DIVORCE, MARRIAGE, AND EUGENICS.

The difficult problems connected with marriage and divorce are at present receiving a very considerable amount of attention in England. A Royal Commission is engaged in taking evidence regarding the operation of the divorce' law, and a recent cablegram announced that the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury has passed a resolution declaring that increased facilities for divorce tend to increase immorality; that the present law favours the rich at the expense of the poor;'' and that the true remedy is to abolish divorce altogether. This is an heroic proposal; but even if it were ideally desirable, it is quite certain that it is practically impossible. However, there is a very general feeling among thoughtful men and w.omen

that the work of making divorce easy has gone far enough, and that it is now high time to call a' halt and review the whole position. There is a growing sense of uneasiness_ at the incessant tampering with the institution of marriage, on which the very foundations of society rest, for the unit of the nation is the family and not the individual. Divorce means the breaking up of the home, and if this process maintains

its present rate of progress in some English-speaking countries social disaster is only a question of time. It may be pointed out on the other

hand that the denial of divorce often results in great hardship to individuals; but in such countries as Canada and Ireland where divorce is almost unknown the average standard of happiness and well-behig does not appear to bo below that of Germany and the United States. As a matter of fact, the "divorce habit" in the United States has developed to such a shocking extent that tho public conscience has been deeply stirred, and the better elements'of the community are uniting to arrest the movement. To give an illustration of the lengths to which the mania for divorce has reached in that great country, it was only recently recorded that a young woman, 17 years old, had divorced two husbands and had.taken l out a license to marry a third. Her'first marriage was on May 2, 1908, and on November 23 of tho same year she secured a divorce. She was married again on July 4, 1909, and six months later she was free once more.

The following table shows at a glance the position in some of the leading communities of the world with regard to divorce:

In Ireland, where divorce can only he obtained by Act of Parliament, tho annual average is less tharj one to the wholo population, and in Canada, there is practically no such .thing as divorce. In New Zealand 'the annual average of divorces is 18 to the 100,000 of the population. -SM& fa hWiar than AustraliA (wi

and much higher than England and Wales (2), but it is much lower than in such countries as 'the' United States (73), Switzerland (32), Saxony (20), Franco (23), and Prussia (15).However, it will be generally admitted that New Zealand has gone quite far enough as far as facilities for divorce are concerned. ' s

A recent writer dealing with the marriage problem states that "the 1 question of divorce, urgent as it unquestionably is at the present , time, may easily be given a promin- . ence which is disproportionate, and actually militates against its sensible and permanent solution. It is ; no reasonable' policy to attack, di--1 rectly and separately, what is only a symptom of a deep-seated moral disorder, unless we endeavour at the same time to euro or, better still, to prevent the malady itself—the false and trivial conception of marriage and family life." This is very true, and at the Royal Commission already referred to, reference was made by more than one witness to tho evil results of reckless and ill-considered marriages. The future of our race largely depends upon the manner in which this difficulty is faced, and here. wo are confronted by tho now science known as eugenics. The very mention of this subject has been made distasteful to many of us by the reckless and extravagant proposals made by some of its advocates; but soberminded men and women have long recognised that'tauch might be done for the betterment of the race by the spread of higher ideals of marriage. The whole question is a very difficult and delicate one, but there is a growing feeling among responsible people that it-is possible to do something in this matter without shocking the moral senso of the community. This task would lie easier if all the advocates of eugenics were as wise and cautious in giving expression to their views as Db. Inge, .the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, who is himself a member of the Council of the Eugenics Society. In a recent lecture to the students of the Bedford College for Women Dit. Inge made it quite clear that he had no sympathy with any proposals that would tend to introduce the methods of the cattle-breeder for the propagation of mankind. ' He emphatically declared that the Society which he represented would have nothing to do with those who would abolish or tamper with marriage, "the best thing in human life," nor did they have any sympathy with the advocates of a lethal chamber; but apart from such suggestions there were many things which could be done to prevent the deterioration of the race and to improve the character and physique of the nation. It was, he said, a positive duty on i the part of those who had reason to believe that they were exceptionally well endowed in qualities of body, mind, and character, to marry and have children. Ho told the girl's that somo knowledge of eugenics would prevent them from falling in love with the wrong sort of person, and he expressed the opinion that an insurance policy, which, of course, involved a medical examination, was vastly more important than a marriage settlement. Dr. Inge expounds his views with such consideration for the finer feelings of the community that he disarms prejudice and removes suspicion; and .if 'those who at present regard "eugenics, to quote the words of' Professor J. Arthur Thomson, "as obtruding into the sanctity of human relationships the counsels of the farm-yard" could be induced to give the whole question calm and, careful consideration, such reflection would probably convince them "that the 6anctity is heightened, riot lessened, when the.solemn issues are realised." What is wanted today is not increased facilities for divorce either for rich or poor,,but a nobler conception of the sacredness of marriage and a. keener realisation of. the far-reaching responsibilities of parenthood. A clean body, a sound mind, a healthy stock, a numerous' progeny—these, says Pbofessoe Karl Pearson, are the essentials of an Imperial race; and he assures us "that one and all of these characteristics of the typical Englishman of the past can he defended on scientific grounds."

Divorces: Annual average. Per Country, Popula- Num-100,000 lion. ber. population. Australia. .. 3,773,24s? 35.0 :o .Austria 26,150,708 170 1 Belgium 0,693,548 7H5 n Bulgaria — 3,714,28:1 HOG il Denmark 2,449,540 411 17 Prance 38,001,945 8,864 23 German Enipiro 50,307,178 8,680 15 Prussia .31,472,509 5,291 15 Saxony 4,202,210 1,209 29 Bavaria 6,176,057 491 S Great Britain: England and Wales 32,527,843 568 2 Scotland 4,472,10:1 175 4 Hungary 19,254,559 2,130 11 Italy 32,475,253 819 3 .lapan 43,763,855 93,919 215 Netherlands 5,104,137 512, 10 New Zealand* ... 772,719 92' 12 Norway 2,221,477 129 (! Rumania 5,956,000 1,187 20 Servia 2,402,882 3I2 13 Sweden 5.130,141 390 8 Switzerland 3,315,113 1,053 32 United Stales ... 75,904,575 55,502 73