The sun., 1907-03-31

many pence, but the law knows no dis
tinction between rich and poor, and must
sentence you to one days imprisonment.
This grsvely delivered speech by one Of
the leading Judges OF his day focused
public attention on a condition OF affairs
which many persons had long felt to be a
hardship. and two years later a law was
passed which simplified divorce in England
and which seemed to satisfy the social
demands OF the time. Recently, however,
another Judge has drawn attention to the
ineouities OF that law viewed in the light
Of modern conditions. and it is likely that
further reforms will follow before long.
The Judge who has voiced public senti-
ment this time is Sir Gorell Barnes, presi-
dent Of the Divorce Court, and it is quite
likely that he had Mr.. Justice Maules speech
in mind. He was speaking to a woman
who had applied to him for a divorce and
who had proved gross infdelity on the
part OF her husband, but had failed to prove
either technical cruelty or desertion.
The law allows a man to obtain a divorce
on the ground of his wife's infidelity, but il
does not allow relief TO a wife unless she
can prove not only infidelity. but, in ad-
dition, either cruelty or desertion. In re-
fusing to grant the womans petition, Sir
Gorell Barnes said:
1T will not be any satisfaction to you
to know that II your case had arisen and
your suit could have been brought in Scot
land or in any other civilized country you
would have succeeded"
The Judges remark aroused discussion
all over England, and in addition to empha-
sizing the injustice to woman OF the present
law It revealed the fact that divorce in
England is still a luxury that only the rich
can AFFORD. One OF the contradictions Of
ha In euhi "a fiiG0rIaainA hna hvnV vrrhf
to light is the fact that to sue for divorce
in fOTmd pau peTis costs at least $50 and
that no solicitor will undertake 20 see an
undefended divorce suit through in the
ordinary way for less than $500. The cost
OF a contested suit will Of course be much
heavier.
Sir Gorell Barnes has taken an active
part in the discussion, an almost unheard Of
thing for an English Judge to do, and, un-
like many persons who denounoe an evil,
he has proposed a remedy. He would first
OF all place the sexes on an equality with
regard to causes for divorce, and he would
then simplify and cheaper the process Of
dissolving n marriage that has become a
mockery OF the term.
His plan involves an extension to the
county courts, which in civil itigations are
known as the poor mans courts, OF the power
to try divorce proceedings and to grant
DEGREES subject perhaps to confirmation by
the high courts in which the suits are now
with the heavy costs Of the high courts and
would also reduce lawyers fees, for solicit
tors may practise in county courts while
/, in the high courts IL IL necessary TO employ
tho services OF harrister.
No testimony TO the need for cheaper
and simpler divorce laws has been more
striking than that given by the London
police Ma gistrates, whose acquaintance
with the problems OF the poor IL unrivalled.
There is a law empowering police Mlgis-
tTates to grant judicial separations to hus-
bands and wives for cruelty. drunkenness
and for other offences. This separation
does not, OF course, carry with II the right
to remArry.
The Magistrates point out that they have
been placed in the position OF being COM
PEELED to grant hundreds Of separation
orders in oases whore divorce was the only
proper remedy. and that every one Of these
separations places two persons in the posi-
ton Of being Condemned % q life Of celibacy
or immortality. IL must be admitted that
tbs result 10 usually immortality. The num-