THE DIVORCE LAW.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 834, 3 May 1910, Page 3

THE DIVORCE LAW.

BEST REMEDY IS TO ABOLISH IT.

London, April 30

The Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury resolved in favour of the repeal of the Divorce Act of 1857. 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. __

MARRIAGE LAW; CHURCH

AND STATE.

Up till the year rSsy, the marriage laws of Church and State in England were identical. In that year an Act of Parliament took away from the Ecclesiastical Courts all jurisdiction on the subject of marriage, and conferred upon a Court specially created jurisdiction to grant divorces. The canon law of the Church, however, has remained unaltered. It does not recognise divorce proper, but only such a form of separation as will enable the parties to live apart without being able to enter into any other marriage. The position of the Anglican 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 Re-marriage.” The principle underlying this declaration (as stated by the Bishop of Auckland recently) is as follows ; (1) That the Church of the Province of New Zealand received its constitution on June 13th, 1857. (2) That at that time the remarriage of divorced persons was strictly forbidden in the Church of England. (3) That the rule which prevailed at that time in the Church of England became the rule of the Church of the province of New Zealand, and must continue so to be until such time as it shall be altered by Act of the General Synod. In giving evidence before the Royal Commission, which is now sitting in England to investigate the divorce laws, including th« hardships of the poorer classes under the existing law, Mr R. 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 lees it would still cost them about ,£lB to get a divorce case through. He suggested that in Loudon there should be an official solicitor attached to each district of the County Court or the Police Court, whose duty it should be to investigate applications for leave to sue for divorce in forma pauperis ; and in a proper case to render the parties assistance in collecting the evidence and marshalling it before the Court. He would give the judge who tried the case authority to certify for the payment of the expenses ol the witnesses out of the public purse. In Loudon he would adhere to the 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 be to travel periodically a circuit and try the divorce cases. Those judges might be selected County Court judges ; and in the country, as in London, he wouid appoint an official solicitor. An appeal should lie Irom those local Courts to the Divorce Division, and there should be power to remove a country case to the High Court.