“Taranaki Central Press” FRIDAY, JULY' 2, 1937. DIVORCE REFORM

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 462, 2 July 1937, Page 4

“Taranaki Central Press” FRIDAY, JULY' 2, 1937. DIVORCE REFORM

Mr Herbert's Divorce Bill owes its passage through the House of Lords to the admission of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the existing law has given rise to grave abuses detrimental not only to marriage itself but to public morality. The Bill was supported, it is true, by the Bishops of Birmingham and Durham on the ground that its provisions ‘‘were in harmony with the law of Christ,” but the canon law says otherwise, and it was upon this law, especially in relation to re-mar-riage, that Dr Lang found himself restrained from giving his vote for the Bill.

What the Archbishop admits is, of course, the whole case for the Bill, but even now it. is a fairly restrained measure. Alcoholism and drug-taking are not included as grounds for divorce, yet Lord Dawson of Penn, speaking as a member of the medical profession, has graphically described “the desperate state of fear” in homes in which one partner is an addict. Lord Dawson says that an increase in divorce does not mean a corresponding increase in marriage failures, and that is probably the experience of New Zealand. 1 he fear of divorce may, indeed, lead to better conduct in the married state, and this is suggested by the fact that though habitual drunkenness, for four years was made a ground for divorce in New Zealand in 1898, and is still the law, last year there were only five decrees on this ground.

It is not possible to estimate the influence of a liberal or illiberal divorce law in promoting happy marriages, and the statistics are of comparatively little significance. Where the law is liberal there are many divorces, and where it is illiberal there are few. It is significant, however, that 329 of the 653 divorces granted in New Zealand last year followed upon mutual separation, and that another 142 were for desertion, while only 99 were for adultery.