CHILDLESS MARRIAGES.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3466, 21 April 1920, Page 2

CH ILDLESS MARRIAGES.

NO C-‘u.HOUl\’l) FOR DIVORCE. R«)colltl_\'. in Mil:l'n_. 11101'0 0ccn1'1'o«1 :1 cam in wlrich divorce was granted on the ground 03" :1 m:l'rl'iage being childless. Commenting on this in the Daily Express, Mr Ihvolock Ellis say.<.:—— ]i‘l'osu:x::ll)Jy ihore are two I'euson_<: Eitllor fhat -suclu :1 uni(m is :Ig:linsr. the mtorests of the State‘ or that it is :Ign.illst. the iifiorcsfs of flw couple concez'lle€:. M)’ '3o']l’f€:l.l’.”3o7‘. that it is against flu: ‘im(_-rests of ‘neither, especially 1n Italy, where the birth-I'at(- is rathel' higim. -

It 1s I‘opol'fed that ‘the Italian Socialists are prepzuing to submit to the Chamber a motion ‘to have mur-:-iagos compulsorily annulled in cases where there are no children. This is élistinctly objcctiollablo_, because mzmy of the lmppicst m-.m'iages are cl1ildlos:.~. I am vcgy' much in favour of Inaking_;~ divorce easier, and of elllal'ging the grounds for divorce. li‘(\ven think ’fll:H' we may 1'0:1(:l1 divorce mutual con-

sent. , Far from ellcom-a::«;i11g ‘the birth of more children ,1 think the birth rate is far too high in Europe. If it had been I’-ov.~'Cr in Gcrnlany we pl'ob:lhly sh«fml<l not hrxvc had flu.‘ grczli war; and, axg‘:l‘i.n, there would not he’ so many

people stzirving. It is impossible to make :1 general rule as to the limitation of frunilies. The larger the number of children ihenlthy parents have, the better for ithe welfare of the (ronnnuiiityt The iproblem is how to discnuiuge the unlsound from bringin_.<_: ehildreiz into the world. If it. were generally recognised that it xiv-as :2. d.l::gx'2ie.eflll thing for people who are not in lit health to halve cliiidrcn, it ivc.-zilcl suit as :1 great Social t'm'<°e. Tllll‘ is ]'E‘llli_‘\' what is needed. J ‘On that groimd I would not make -cliil<il.r_r.=.<ne.<s i'!{L‘C..'§(‘ the parties concerned Inuy be izictiiig from high and worthy motives 1 in not having children. Another question arises: Who is to bring the suit, the lmsbzrud or the wife»? It’ the one who is considered at fmilt institutes proceedings, is it quite just? '.l.‘hink. whzit might, happen. ‘ A -husbaml might seek :1 divorce,‘ .whereu.s he miglit. be the ]f,»el';s"on at * t'uult, and the wife Y\’.o‘.ll{i be punished ‘ in the eyes of th_e world. 1 It must also be rernembc-red thutl ;children are not the only reason for i'marriage.- l\l:lrriage is for the niutual’ isolace of :1 couple, and in nuiny eases V tjhat. is quite a. sutfieient reason in itself. Childless 11’1[L1‘1‘l1\g0S in-uy lead to domestic discontent in seine cases, but, 9 on -the other liarnd, they may mean that husbands and ‘Wives are more devoted to each other because they have noi children to be devoted to. I