THE DIVORCE LAW

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 42, 12 November 1921, Page 9

THE DIVORCE LAW

ADDRESS BY MR. A. R. ATKINSON. Mr. A. R. Atkinson addressed a public meeting in St. John’s Schoolroom lost evening. The meeting was called by the Women’s National Council, and Miss Coad (president) was in the chair. In introducing the speaker, she outlined the course which the Women’s National Council was taking in protesting against the provision, in the divorce law. which allowed) the guilty party to petition for divorce.' .-. Mr. Atkinson began by detailing some of tho arguments that he had brought against section 4 of the Act at previous meetings. The words he considered vital in this section were “subject to the discretion of the Court.” Quoting statistics, Mr. Atkinson said that in 1898 tlie number of divorces was 31, and in 1920 it was 574, which he considered an alarming increase. In 1900 the number was 85; in 1910, 154; and in 1915, 221. American figures were also quoted, and in this connection he remarked that at tho rate people were being divorced under the new Act in this country the total number of divorces might be as high in the coming year as it was in tho United States in i 960. New Zealand had increased divorces by 300 per cent, in 20 years. Whilst there was a difference of opinion between Judges in the interpretation of the Act, he believed that Mr. Justice Hordlman was right as to policy, and he felt satisfied it was a duty to follow that lino of policy. He had not the smallest objection in the world to giving an innocent woonan any power to release her from hmrriage whore it had become intolerable, but he held the strongest objection to giving the right to petition for divorce to tho guilty party. If woman, however, preferred the status which was hers under an order, then she was entitled to the right to stay there. In this matter justice and expediency stood together, and it was not expedient or just that a guilty man should bo placed’in a position to treat another woman as he had treated his divorced wife.

Speaking of the classes of marriage particularly affected by section 4, Mr Atkinson took emphatic exception to the retrospective action of the law. Parliainent without notice had made a woman consent to something which she had never anticipated 1 , and had not made provision for, because she had consented to separation ’without thought of the possibility of divorce at the end of three years. Separation had often been consented to in the past tn avoid the shame of divorce. The retrospective legislation gave to the guilty/party the right to petition for divorce. To separations after the passing of .the Act there was not the same objection, for the people concerned knew the risks they were taking.

Mr. Atkinson also spoke of what happened under the new law with regard to separation orders and decrees, and said that last year 69 separation orders were taken out, and the number tins year was 64. The effect upon future marriages *n this country was hard to foresee. It was certain that all ideas of reasonable permanence would have to bq, abandoned. Theoretically a husband would have to pay when divorced as much to his wife ns he paid during separation, but in reality when new claims camo upon him (if he married again) this state of things would be materially affected. Air, Atkinson urged that the whole of section 4 should be repealed. ' The following motion was carried: but not by any means unanimously:—“That this meeting records its emphatic protest against tho provisions of section 4 of the Divorce Amendment Act, 1920, under which the guilty party to a broken marriage contract is empowered to take! proceedings for a divorce, and the merits of the other party constitute no (Tefence; and especially deplores the position in which the large number of women who, have been compelled to take out separation orders against their husbands •will thu* ly> placed, and requests Parliament to repeal the provision. in question without delay.” Several members of the audience left before the motion was put to the vote.