Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-11-17
AN ENGLISH ANOMALY
Mrs. Ashton Dixie on the Deceased
Wife's Sister Problem.
DIVORCE LAWS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
The Warehouses Of Blandford's Famous
Suit Against
TIE WICKED DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE DIsPArcH.l
LONDON, November 6.-Amid the hear
Of aborsive legislation which strews the
path of every parliamentary session, there
was one bill this year framed 50 as to re.
move what is at once q grave injustice to
women and an absurd inconsistency in the
laws Of Great Britain. This was q private
bill introduced by DR.. Hunter, the member
for Aberdeen, to assimilate the English di-
vorce law with that of Scotland. Ever
since the publication Of "FaithfuI and On.
faithful"-or "Divorce" as 1 believe it ID
called in the United States-has famil-
iarized the English reader with the possible
hardships inflicted by the variations of the
American divorce laws, there has been no
point on which he has assured greater airs
of superior morality than in this of the mar
riage system. And he is. as rule, cnriously
oblivious of the fact that he is offending
against the old adags regarding the throw
ing of stones in glass houses.
In reality, the anomalies in the English
marriage law are quite as great as in the
American. If in America there is differ
ent divorce law in every State, in the
United Kingdom there is q different one for
England, for Scotland and for Ireland, each
of which is far smaller in point of size
than many of the American States. And
not only do the legal restrictions affecting
the untying of the hymeneal knot Varv,
but the rules and regulations regarding the
wedding ceremony itself present a most
bewildering diversity. Special licenses,
registration, the publishing of banns, etc.,
all differ in the three Kingdoms, and to any
one but born Britisher the whole system
offers striking example Of the scrappy
nature of our much-vannted legislation.
Let us take in the first instance the ques-
tion of divorce. In England proper q hus-
band can get divorce from his wife on the
ground of simple infdelity, while woman
can only obtain decree against her hus-
band for combined in6delity and cruelty, or
inhdelity and desertion. II an English
woman, in the first burst of indignation at
her husbands misconduct, leaves the con-
jugal mansion, she forfeits all chance of
freedom, as she depriVes him of any oppor-
tunity Of rendering himself guilty either of
desertion or Of cruelty. Not so in Scotland,
There, as in France under NJ. Naquet's law,
husband and wife stand
ON AN EQUAL FOOTING
as regards infdelity, and further ground
for procuring an absolute dissolution Of the
contract is provided by desertion for four
years. DR.. Hunters recent bill would have
conferred similar privileges on English
women. and his failure to secure q day for
the discussion Of bis measure was a rare dis
appointment to all Of us who believe in the
superior morality Of equal laws for both
sexes.
In ireland, on the other hand. there Ia
correctly speaking no divorce at all. When
the English divorce law was passed in 1857.
Ireland was excluded from its sphere Of
operation, partly because in a Catholic
country the Law was likely to remain in
operative, and partly, no doubt because the
Irish, as people, are so extremely moral
that the necessity for any relaxation of the
bonds Of matrimony was very little felt.
An Irishwoman has no redress whatever
against her husband, and an Irishman who
wishes to be rid of his wife has wearisome
and expensive task before him. He must
first obtain decree OF separation mensa ct
thoro in the Dublin ecclesiastical courts:
then he must win an action for damages
against his rival in the civil court, and
finally he must carry his case to the House
of Lords and induce their lorships 10 PASS a
special act annulling his marriage. He may
consider himself lucky if at the end of the
process he is not more than 81 900 out Of
pocket.
The fundamental idea of the English
divorce law-and here it differs very largely
from that of AmerIca-is one Of punish
ment. Hence the somewhat bewildering
theory that in matrimonial matters, two
Blacks make a white, or, in other words,
that where both husband and wife have
sinned against each other neither Of them
are entitled to redress. This fact is best ex-
emplifed in the notorious Marlborough di-
vorce case. When the Marchioness Of
Blandford obtained decree of divorce for
infdelity and cruelty against her husband,
the present Duke Of Marlborough, on ac-
count of his relations with the then Count
ess of Aylesford, the Earl Of Aylesford was
debarred on his side from divorcing his wife
owing to the fact that be had already sought
and found consolation elsewhere. The most
natural result Of the theory is an immense
Of cross-suits, the guilty
party trying to shield himself behind an
accusation Of tn quoque.
In England, for some mysterious reason,
the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty cases
are all muddled up together in one court,
which is presided over by Sir James Han
men, one OF the aDlesb ana mosb Ampfc8SlVc
Of living English Judges, and by Sir |
Charles Butt, who is popularly reported to |
have selected the post in order to avoid
leaving his very pretty young American |
wife alone at home while he was away on |
circuit.
AN AMUSING PARADOX
One Of the most comic absurdities Of the
present marriage laws in England is that |
whereas it is strictly prohibited to marry |
your deceased wife's sister, there is nothing !
to prevent q man from marrying his d.
Vorced wife's sister, should he feel 50 dis
posed, even during the lifetime Of his repu-
dated partner. i,
But this brings us straight to the great |
deceased Wife's sister question, which pre-
sents one Of the most haring anomalies OF
the English marriage system. Marriage |
with deceased wife's sister has been legal |
lied in all our colonies, American and Aus
tralian, with the full consent Of the Crown. !
A bill with similar object has repeatedly !
passed the House Of Commons. Yet |