New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-06-04
DITORCE 1YCIEN7 AND MODERN.
Enm The london Globe.

From The London Globe.
In that Revolution the attack upon lndlSsouble
marriages in France was first successfully made Nv
a certain Dubayet. whose law passed the Assembly
on the 10th of September 1892 by 1t the then eX-
stng system of separation dc corps ct de 6n which
has now been in force again for sixty six years. was
entirely abolished. and divorce was made the sole
means of obtaining separation betwe III husband
and wife. The decree OF divorce was also made
Obtainable upon the most vague and easy grounds,
including mutual consent, SO that, practically
speaking the law allowed anyone who chose to
ouit the married state. In the two or three years
following the time when the Act was passed an IN
Vulnerable multtude of married persons east OH the
woke on the most imSy and absurd IreteXts. and
marriage rs an institution was thrown into almost
complete discredlt. La flarDe. amongst other per-
sons got a divorce for IncompatIbIllty OF temper"
in l793 and there were numerous instances OF
dissolution of marriage effected simply IN order to
enable the husband to swndle his wife out OF her
dOwry. The Imperial Legislature dealt with the
subject in way which has commando rs much
admiration as any otner part OF the Nap0IeOnlc
Code Judicial separations were relntr0duced lot
the benefit of those religious persons VINO shranK
from divorce conscientious grounds; Dut the
latter proceeding was also recognzed though only
upon proper and sufficient grounds and with enec-
live guarantees against abuse. The Act, which
was passed in 1903 had been preceded 10y a careful
tLa commission illustrates in "A striking way the
enormous scandals produced by the license OF pre-
ceding wears So great was the influence OF THESE
revelations upon respectable society IN France that
even the modified practice permitted ny the Coae
WAS deemed step too far in the direction OF lib
erty, and when the Bourbons were restored there
was more satisfaction than disappointment, even
amongst many of the Revolutionary party ut the
total abolition OF divorce which occurred IN 1916.
Divorce was even In very early times practice
against which the French were prone to set their
faces. Although it practiscd 10y Charlbert
Chilperic and Charlemagne these kings were
thought to have acted rather in an arbitrary than
legal way in repudiating their wives. Then sew
era of the first SOSeTelgns of the Capetan dynasty
had desperate quarrels with the POpes on the same
subject. These alterations came TO head IN the
time of Philip H.; and when That hlng without
Il ptp TrlO t
mark the kingdom was laid under IN lntefdlct, ana
Philip was completely defeated, after bringing
upon his subjects punishment when maze thenl
long abhOr the very mention of divorce. Outside
France, the laws affecting divorce have been eX-
tremelv various The Jews allowed it freely; and
by a liberal Interpretation of the Mosaic law,
Jewish husbands were left with almost unlimited
powers of writing Il bill of enforcement" The
Medes and Per ans permitted II " III order TO secure
dissolved on the petition OF either Spouse but IN
Rome it was for long time only the husband VINO
could get rid OF his WIFE In t later Roman legs-
latiOn, divorce meant dissolution by the consent
of both. whilst reputation was the word Tor Il
dissolution of the instance OF one alone. In the
latter days of the Republic the practice had become
extremely common. Thus, Pompey divorced his
first wife SO rs to marry granddaughter OF Syila,
and OF etcctng treaty with Caesar, got rid OF her
in order TO marry the daughter OF his new Ply.
When the pair OF generals quarIelIed, he IN turn
disnis Used the Lady Julia, and remarked "a Jouhg
girl of the Scipo family In the Imperial times;
81. jerome mentions the case OF woman VINO hau
III Scripture having had ten husbands - an cN-
ample of the prevalence OF the practice amongst
the Syrian peOpcS-a practice which Christianity
for the first time absolutely discouraged. II is not
surprising that the ecclesiastical courts should, III
the Middle Ages. have derived an immense deal of
power from matrimonial cases. The prerogative of
sanctioning a divorce. or rather aunulllng a mar
ragc having once been appropriated to the Pope.
became Il source Of extraordinary influence In the
Holy See; and it is backneyed phrase that tho
of England from the Papal power
was effected chiefly by Henry Wills grand dispute
rs TO his divorce from Katharine of Aragon. The
revolution of the seventeenth century IN England
might have been expected to legalize divorce by
temporal tribunal, more especially rs Milton hau
written one of his most effective works III favor OF
such scheme in l6il. But the measure was never
adopted, and il WAS reserved for a commission APP
pon cd in 1880 10 advise the removal from tie
House of Lords of the monopoly OF dlsS0Nlng mar
rage>, ard to afford the motive power which caused
the passing of the Act of 1897, which introduced
the present rather doubtfully advantageous English
system. ,
Amongst other countries. the example OF the
United States is often quoted as tho best modern
instance of n facility In obtaining divorces. IL Is.
however a complete mistake TO suppose that all
the States admit this laXity In South Carolina for
instance divorces almost, ii not quite. I'M
known. In Virginia and Kentucky the Legislature
alone can dissolve marriages. and in Georgia, Mis-
sssippi and Alabama the decree for dissolution must
be passed by the assent of twOthrs of each branch
of the Legislature, and founded upon previous
judicial Investigation. But in the other States
much greater LATITUDE Is allowed.