EASIER DIVORCE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1634, 28 December 1912, Page 2

EASIER DIVORCE.

BRITISH COMMISSION'S VIEWS,

"AN AMERICAN SYSTEM.

ATTITUDE OF THE CLERGY,

A wide divergence of opinion amons the Commissioners who have inquired into the laws relating to divorce and matrimonial causes was not unexpected, states the London' "Daily Telegrapli" of November 13. The majority and minority reports, it continues, disclose couiplotely opposing views on several vital issues, and it is probable that the two reports will arouse keen discussion. The reasons for the findings of both sides are very clearly set forth, and they will doubtless receive the full consideration they deserve. A great deal of interest is certain to be aroused over tho reasons given by the minority-tho Archbishop of York, Sir William Anson, M.P., and Sir Lewis T. Dibdin—for dissenting from the recommendations of their nine fellow-Com-missioners that facilities for obtaining a dissolution of the marriage tie should be granted on various grounds. . Tho minority report, in fact, is fully as interesting as tho document to which the majority appendod their names, and in the twentyone pages the report covers will be found practically every argument that could be raised in. opposition to the proposals of three-fourths of the Commissioners. The opinion of tho minority is contained in this one sentence near the end of their report:— "We' recommend that, subject to the recognition of .equality between the seie3, tho law shonld not be altered so as to extend the grounds of divorce." The threo dissenting Commissioners agree with the majority "As to amendments in procedure and practice, except so far as the recommendations contemplate the substitution ,of divorce for mere separation in certain cases where magistrates' ordors have been made. ■ "As to the grounds on which decrcea of nullity could be obtained. "As to 'presumption of death' where husband or wife has not been heard of for .seven years. "As to limitation of the publication of reports of divorce suits."

The American System. .: On other matters tho Commissioners hold opposing viows. Tho minority subscribe to an interesting review of divorce in other countries—"tho lessons of experience" and they have a good deal to say of the results of tho American divorce law, which is "largely similar, to that which'our colleagues would 6cc established in this country." 111 the United States divorce is growing rapidly year by year. The figures in 1906 were 88 per 100,000 inhabitants; tho rate for, England and Wales in 1900 was 2 per 100,000 of the population. Divorce in tho States is brought to "every man's door," and tho subject is not regarded seriously enough. A cause is said to be tho lightness and frivolity with which marriage is treated. It is obvious that the multiplication of facilities for dissolving an un.piccessful mar--riage will not tend to diminish the recklessness with which marriage is contracted. This was'well. put\by an American, witness, whose general point of view was favourable to divorce as a necessary evil., He admitted that "there would probably be in the minds of some _ persons a. cheapening effect upon marriage if they calculated that, in the act of marriage or in the contracting of a union, there would be possibly some way out of it." After makiug all allowances for differences of national temperament, climate, and circumstances between. England and tho United States, we are bound to recognise that the two countries havo too much in common to make it probable that, if wo in England adopt wh.at are substantially the American grounds for. divorce, we shall escape the grave disasters wliich have admittedly followed their adoption in the United States. The unwisdom of neglecting so conspicuous an object lesson is emphasised by the fact,; which apparently is admitted on all hands . that, now that' the; present : American divorce law lias had' time to take root,l and bear its ineyitable fruit, no mere legislative restrictions, even if practicable, will stem the tide of divorce.

The minority assert that the evidenoa taken before *lhem clearly proved that there was no demand on the part of the Soorer classes for divorce on other grounds lan misconduct. They decline to regard the multiplication of separation and maintenance orders as indicating any widefiread demand for multiplied causes of ivorce, and they hold that,' apart from such changes as might bring within tho reach of all tho remedies which the law provides for all there is no effective demand that divorce should be made easier.

Desertion and Cruelty. In opposing the recommendation that desertion for three years should be a condition for .divorce, the minority protest that this would increase the probability of collusive and rash and hasty divorces, : which are the outcome of some passing outburst of tempor, and they again cite the experience of America, where collusion is carried to such/'a degree as' to "soandalise all decent people." A good deal of the criticism in regard to making desertion a ground for divorce also applies to crudty, which, they say, is denned in words which may mean anything from gross personal violence to the continuous exercise of a sharp tongue or tho habitual indulgence in a surly temper. The conception of what constitutes cruelly differs materially in classes, and even in families; it may also differ'in the minds of judges. A blow in one class of life, is not the unforgivable injury that it might be in another; a frankness of sarcastic speech that would bo regarded as injurious to "mental health" in ono family might be the daily practice of another, and regarded as an agreeable characteristic by themselves and their friends. The definition of cruelty which we are invited to adopt would inevitably promote collusive suits, woiild leave the dissolution of tho marriage tie to the varying discretion of judges, and might lead to a divorce being granted to parties who would aftorwards bitterly regret tho temper in which thoy had put the law into force. To the proposal that lunacy should be a ground upon which 1 a_ person might' be granted divorce, the [minority take exception. If incurable insanity is held to be a valid cause, why not epilepsy and paralysis ? t The proposal would retard the reoovery of tho curable, painfully aggravate tho lot o£ many of tho incurable, and even help to upset the balance of some who, without being insane, are liable to become so. Without at all underrating oases of individual hardship to the same partners, we cannot recommend a remedy for themwhich would be thus crudely callous to all other consequenoes.

"A Popoular Institution." . The sanie point is taken m regard to habitual drunkonness. If imprisonment for lifo where the death sentence has been commuted is to bo acceptod as a ground for divorce, why not a sentence of ton or fifteen years' penal servitude?

One of the strongest reasons for not allowing desertion and cruelty as good causes of divorce is tho caso with which they may bo utilised for the dissolution of marriage of whiph tho parties have simply grown tired and mutually desire to make on end. It will be remembered that experience in the United States emphatically confirms the reality of this danger. . Tho danger lies not merely in tho risk of a misuse of law in individual cases, but in tho creation of a habit of mind , ill' the peoplo; for thero is evidently a tendency in the United States for husbands and wives and their friends in certain classes of society to see no discredit in divorce basod on allegations of cruelty or desertion, while Judges make 110 effort to detect collusion, but consider it to be their duty to facilitate divorce whenever tho parties are. obviously tired of one another s society. Divorce as the result of mutual arrangement is "looked upon by people of respectability in certain walks of life as a popular and firmly established institution." We submit that tho proposals of the majority report cannot bo viewed apart from the principle upon which they are founded, and the consciences which logically follow, and have in fact followed" upon its adoption. Those proposals, if 'carried out by legislation, would lead the nation to a downward inclino on which it would be vain to oxpeot to bo ablo to stop half-way. It is idle to imngine that in a matter where great human passion must always bo, pressing with all their might against whatever barriers nro set up, those barriers can bo normanontly maintained in a position ohosani with no bstter reason

to support them than tlie supposed condition of public opinion at the moment of their eroction. But if tho principle which lies behind the proposals of tho mnjorty report bo onco admitted, with all that it necessarily implies, the result would be practically to abrogate the principle of monogamous lifelong union. Would tho adoption of our colleagues' proposals, with tlie consequences which, however, undesired, must follow, be for tho genoral welfaro of the people of this country? That is tho question we have to answer. We believo the preponderating voico of history and experience would answer in tho negativo, and that in riving that answer it would be supported bv tho verdict of the best and wisest of those in every age who have striven to promoto tlio moral advancement and tne happiness of the human race.

Attltuda of State and Church. Tho minority put forward the pica that it is in tho interest of the State to maintain the standard of its present marriage law. "It is in the interest of the State to etrengthep the sense of responsibility in entering the married state and the willingness of mutual sacrifice in continuing it." • Tho causes of marriage failure are generally attributed to lack of these qualities, and the minority contend that to attempt to deal with these matters by multiplying grounds of divorce is to attack the problem at tho wronf end. Tho real remedy, they declare, is to exert influences to rouse tho conscience and stimulate tho moral 6enso of the nation.

Tho Church's attitude is dealt with at some length. If the Stato should decide to multiply tie grounds of divorco . It is certain that the great majority of the clergy will declino to officiate at the marriages of persons so divorced, and a largo number of them will refuse to admit such persons' to Holy Communion. The Church of England's pressnt standards of belief and conduct do not contemplate the marriage of persons who have bcc-n already married and havo been parties to decrees for divorce on the ground of .desertion, cruelty, insanity, drunkenness, or imprisonment. It is, wo need hardly say, most improbable that, tho Prayer Book will bo altered so as to make it consistent with enlarged views of divorco which are alien to its teaching, and which it seems to bo admitted involve a departure, even if a necessary departure, from an ideal recogniscd by the State itself.