Daily Arizona silver belt., 1910-04-17
Expense So Great that Only Rich Apply for Divorce
 in Great Britian
LITIGATION SAID
 TO BE INCREASING
Relative Gravity of Mis- conduct by Man and
 Wife Discussed

LONDON, April 16.-There is no di. vorce for the poor man in England. This has been emphasized repeatedly during the sittings of the royal com mission on divorce, which, by the way, have developed some interesting facts.
 "The position of the poor is a shock ing one,o said Sir George Lewis, the famous solicitor who has retired and who perhaps has handled more divorce cases than any man in England. As the law stands there is no divorce for them The poor cannot afford to bring their cases to London.
 "All that can be done in case of domestic disagreement is to obtain an order of separtion and to these Sir George said he was strongly opposed, looking upon them as an odious sort of punishment v
 But while divorces practically are confined to the rich they are increasing in England and Wales at a greater rate than the population as was shown by figures produced by Sir John Mac dOnnell, master of the supreme court. The statistics showed that in a large proportion of dissolved marriages there were no children.
 Witness also produced figures showing | that two-thirds of the divorces took place when the parties had been married from five to twenty years. There were hardly any divOrces in the first year of manfred life, very few after couple of years, while the number increased after five years. Forty per cent of the divorces occurred when the parties had been married between ten and twenty years.
 In relation to the poor mans position the consensus is that the poor should have increased facilities of freeing themselves from undesirable partners. Sir John Bigham, president of the di- vorce court, made several statements during his testimony which created some sensation. Questioned as to the sub iect of sex equality, Sir John said:
 CT do not think that an act of mis- conduct on the part of man has any | thing like the same significance as an act of misconduct on the part of wo- man. Most men-I think all men know it perfectly well. An act of mis- conduct on the part of a man may be more or less accidental It does not di- minish-very frequently, at all events and I am not talking of continuous misconduct-it is not inconsistent with his continued esteem and love for his wife. On the other hand, an act of mis- conduct on the part of a woman is quite | inconsistent with her continued love and esteem for her husband. ' A similar position was taken by T. $. | Gritiiths. solicitor, who quoted from l Boswell's "Life of Johnsonn to show | that Johnson thought an act of miscon- duct on the part of a wife more serious because "confusion of progeny' might result, whereas misconduct by hus- band, although it might be criminal in | the sight of God, did not do the wife material injury.
 | This extract led to questions by Lady Frances Balfour, who is member of | the commission.
 "Do you consider that infdelity on | the part of a husband with a servant in the house would be cruelty7" she asked.
 "Do you mean cruelty in the divorce court sense or actual?p The witness replied: "lt would be actual cruelty of gross kind. |"
 "Do you think such an act would make the wife feel that her own VOW of fidelity was loosened?" was Lady Balfour's s next question and the answer was: "lt depends very much on the wife. With a good many wives, yes; with good many wives, no. It depends on how high an opinion the wife has of the marriage tie. "
 l