The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1910-03-27
NO DIVORCE FOR
The POOR MAN

London, March 26.-(Special )-There Is
no divorce for the poor man in England
This has been emphasized repeatedly
during tho sittings of the royal commits
sion on divorce which by the way have
developed some very interesting facts.
THE position of the poor is shock
ing one,' sir George Lewis, the famous
solicitor who has just retired and who.
perhaps, has handled more divorce cases
than any man in England, said In reply
to Lord Gorell 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 a case of do
nestle disagreement Is to obtain an or
der of separation, and to these, Sir George
said, replying to Lord Guthrie, he was
strongly opposed, looking upon them as
an odious poor, of punishment
But while divorces practically are con-
fined 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 Macdonald
master of the supreme court. The sta
tistics showed that in a very large pro-
portion of dissolved marriages there were
no children. Witness also produced fig
ures showing that two-thirds of the di-
vorces took place when the parties had
been married from Ave to twenty years.
There were hardly any divorces In the
irst year of married life, very few after
a couple OF years, whilst the number In
creased after five years. Forty per cent
of the divorces occurred when the parties
had been married between 10 and 20
years.
In relation to the poor mans position,
the concensus Is that the poor should
have increased facilities for freeing them
selves from undesirable partners.
Sir John Bigham, president of the d.
vorce court made several statements
during his testimony which created some
sensation.
Questioned as to the subject of sex
quality Sir John said II do not think
that an act of misconduct on the part Oh
a man has anything like the same Sig
niflcance as an act of misconduct on the
part of woman. Most men-I think all
men-know 1t perfectly well. An act OF
misconduct on the part OF a man may pc
more or less accidental. 1t does not d.
minlsh--very frequently, at all events,
and l am not talking of continuous mis-
conduct--it is not inconsistent with his
continued esteem and love for his wife.
On the other hand, an act of misconduct
on the part of a woman is quite incon-
sisteut with continued love and esteem
for her husband"
A similar position was taken by I. 5.
Griffths, a solicitor. who quoted from
Boswells Life of Johnson to show
that johnson thought an act OF miscon-
duct on the part of wife more serious
because confusion of progeny might
result, whereas misconduct by husband,
although 1t might be criminal in the
sight Of God, did not do the wife mate
rial injury.
This extract led to questions by Lady
Frances Balfour, who is member OF
the commission do you consider that
infidelity on the part of q husband with
a servant in the house would be crueltyY'
sh, asked do you mean cruelty In the
divorce court sense, or actual?' the wit
ness replied ut would be actual cruelty
OF a gross kind"
do you think such an act would make
thu wife feel that her own VOW of hdel-
ity was loosened?' was Lady Balfour
next question, and the answer was; 1T
depends very much on the wife. win
good many wives. yes; with a good
many wives, no. 1t depends on now nigh
an opinion the wife has of the marriage
tie -