Los Angeles herald., 1907-04-14
FIND DIVORCE A
HEAVY LUXURY
IN ENGLAND ONLY THE RICH
CAN AFFORD IT
Cheaper Rates Demanded-Poor Want
Chance to Secure Legal Separa=
tion-Proposed Reform Has
Support of Judges
Special Gable to The Herald.

Special CaDle 10 me tteTdlu.
LONDON, April 13-As if this coun-
| try had not enough to occupy its mind
in the way of bringing education and
the house of lords up to date, granting
home rule in Ireland and checking the
too rapid reform of municipal admin
istration, there has begun persistent
agitation for radical changes in the di-
vorce laws.
| 1t has the support of some eminent
judges, and the arguments advanced in
favor Of reform, consisting mainly in
statements of fact, bring to light a
condition that is no less surprising than
the oft derided looseness of divorce
regulations for which America is sup
posed to be distinguished.
Prior to 1857 there was no divorce law
in England, and, in fat, the Irish law
today is exactly what the English law
was before the passage of the act
which is now in force in England Be
fore the enactment of the present law
the only relief from an intolerable mar
riage was by the passage of special
act of parliament annulling 1t. This,
of course, was an impossibility except
for the highly placed or the very
wealthy.
The present law resulted from the
conviction of laborer for bigamy in
1856 The mans wife had left him and
gone away with another man. The de-
serted husband heard nothing of her for
more than ten years, after which inter-
val he went through the form of mar
riage with a second woman, with whom
he lived happily for several years.
Then his lawful wife reappeared and
in fit of spite or jealousy started a
prosecution against him for bigamy.
The facts were not denied and there
was nothing for the court to do but find
the man guilty of bigamy and punish
him. When he was brought up for SEN
tence Justice Maule, who presided at
the tried, said to him:
"You have been convicted of an Of
fense against the law of your country,
and the law says that you must be pun
ished for it. That you did not intend
to offend does not excuse you, for ig-
norance Of the law is no excuse, but
that you may realize what you have
done, will tell you how you should
have proceeded.
Judge Is Sarcastic
"You should have gone to the eccles-
iastical court and there obtained
against your wife a decree a mensa ct
thoro. You should then have brought
an action in the courts at common law
and recovered, as no doubt you would
have DONE damages against your wife's
paramour.
ARMED with these DEGREES you
should have approached the legislature
and obtained an act of parliament
which would have rendered you free
and legally competent to marry the per-
son whom you have taken on yourself
to marry with no such sanction.
"It is quite true that these proceed
ings would have cost you many hun
dreds of pounds, whereas you probably
have not as many pencs, but the law
knows no such distinction between rich
and poor, and / must sentence you to
one days Imprisonment"
This graVely delivered speech by one
of the leading judges of his day focused
public attention on a condition of af-
fairs which many persons had long felt
to be a hardship, and two years later a
law was passed which simplified di-
vorce in England and which seemed to
satisfy the social demands of the time.
Recently, however, another Judge has
drawn attention to the inequalities of
that law viewed in the light of modern
conditions, and 1t is likely that further
reforms will follow before long.
The judge who has voiced public sem
timent this time is Sir Gorell Barnes,
president of the divorce court, and ii is
quite likely that he had Mr.. Justice
Maule's speech in mind. He was speak
ing to woman who had applied to him
for a divorce and who had proved a
gross infidelity on the part of her hus-
band, but had failed to prove either
technical cruelty or desertion.
The law allows a man to obtain q
divorce on the ground of his wifes in
| fidelity, but 1t does not allow relief to
wife unless she can prove not only
infidelity but, in addition, either
cruelty or desertion. In refusing TO
grant the woman's petition, Sir Gorell
Barnes said:
Where II Would Succeed
1T will not pe any satisfaction to you
to know that II your case had arisen
and your suit could have been brought
in Scotland or In any other civilized
country you would have succeeded"
The judges remark aroused dis
cussion all over England, and I'm addi-
tion to emphasizing the injustice to
women OF the present law 1t revealed
| the fart that divorca IN England ia atill