New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-06-09
will end without legislative solution OF THIS

will end without legislative solution OF THIS
question. n.
Under the first Republic an elastic Divorce
Law was passed and under the first Empire u
was continued without modification IN the civil
code. The Restoration effaced divorce from the
statutes and lcgalized separation without the
privilege of re-marriage. In 1880 and again III
1S4S the revolutionary movement was ioi-
lowed by renewal of the divorce controversy
but the law remains to-day as 1t was passed. III
1916. The marriage bond is to-day indissoi-
uble in what is perhaps the least religious ana
most immoral country i'll Europe; ana NJ
Naouet's persistent efforts to modify the pre-
valino law have been followed with languld IN
terest by the French people. Popular indiiler-
ence TO this subject is not TO be explained by
religious feeling for there is very ilttlc sehu-
ment of that'sort, especially in the Chambers.
1t is probably due largely to the reverence lor
parental authority which in France taxes tne
place of religion as the main prop OF FANNY
life. Divorce is opposed not so much because
it is irreligious in principle as because IL Is SUD
versive of parental influence. VI. Naquet wishes
IN make divorce so easy that there would be no
security in family life. He would grant the
privilege of re-marriage not only for Scriptural
cause for cruelty. insults, Imprisonment, ig-
nominious nunishment or dcsertiOn for a term
of years, but would also provide Tor divorce by
mutual consent whenever couple finds marriage
insuppOrtable or exceedingly unpleasant, yet
cannot bring, either against the other, any
serious charge. If il were not for the difficulty
of providing for the control, support and gov
eminent of the children, the French Senators
might be-as flexible as the Deputies i'll sanction
ing NJ. Naquct's law. AS it is, they hesitate
and shrink from passing so radical a measure.
Elastic as is this French measure, one thing
can be said in favor of it. 1t provides Ma
tional law for regulating marriage and divorce,
and for that reason is superior to the confused
and conflicting legislation of the separate States
in this country. A general law, even II 1t were
more elastic than the conservative statutes OF
this State, would be better than the license and
confusion of the present incongruOus system OF
irreconcilable laws. The prospect for the es-
Enlistment of uniform code of marriage and
divorce laws in the United States cannot be sad
to be promising. Here as i'll France there is a
widespread popular indifference to be over
come While parental authority counts for less
here than there religion is Il stronger force III
social and political life. If loose ideas prevail
respecting the indissUiubiiity of marriage and
the sanctity of family life, it is because the Prot
estant churches as a rule are silent on this
question and neglect what is their plain duty.
Bishop Littlejohn, we are glad to notice.
made this the leading theme of his annual
address to his diocesan convention i'll Brooklyn
last week. His denuncations of the modern
facilities for breaking up families and homes,
and his warnings against the social tendencies
of the times, ought to be repeated from pulpit
to pulpit The churches cannot hope to edu-
cate public sentiment on this gravest of social
questions without taking an uncompromiSing
stand in defence of the Christian principle OF
the indissolubity of marriage. When they do
this there will be better prospect of securing
not only uniform but a stringent and con-
servativc system of marriage and divorce law.