Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1920-05-01
Divorce in England
By Frederic J. HaSkin

news that a bill to make divorces
easier and cheaper has passed it's
second reading in the British parliiaSI-
ment by q large majority, and will,
in all probability, become law, has
aroused new interest in this delicate
subject. Gilbert Keith Chesterton has
published a book on the subject in
which he attacks divorce IS super
stition'' and upholds the religious
view that marriage should be an in
dissoluble bond, and urge that the
laws governbing it should be
| founded upon experience rather than
upon spiritual ideal.
That new English law is decidedly
| liberal, for England; yet it cannot be
said to be the work of liberal forces.
| In 1909 a royal commission on di-
vorce was appointed, and after three
years of study and elaboration 1t
made a report, advocating more lib
eral divorce legislation. 1t is upon
this report that the present bill is
based. Naturally, the royal commits
sion was anything but radical body.
| Venerable churchmen were members
Of it, and it spent much time and Ell
| fort trying to decide what Jesus
Christ really thought about the sub
| ject. This is distinctly a conserVa-
! tive viewpoint from which to APP
proach the matter. The more liberal
| thinkers, while admittingg that
Christ was great laW-glVer IN his
| time, hold that social conditions nave
changed so much that His opinion on
a purely social problem cannot be any
| longer regarded as final.
The present divorce law in England
is illiberal in the extreme. In order
! to get a divorce from her husoano,
woman must prove both adultery
and cruelty. AS IN TINS county, MY =,
| bv collision. 1t is usual to prove the
adultery charge by confession or by
manufactured evidence. The charge
of cruelty is more difficult. 1t is
held that prolonged desertlon IS
cruelty. 1t is therefore usual for
co11nle seeking divorce to separate.
| After a certain length of time the
wife then brings suit for restitution
of conjugaI rights" of which one IS
always reading in the newspaper ac-
| counts of divorces in British hlgh So
| ciety. If, after fourteen days, hef
husband does not return, the charge
| of cruelty is considered proved, anu
the divorce follows in due course
In this way persons who have sur
| ficient money have been long accus-
toned to get divorces whenever theS
| wished, but it is a long, expensive
process, highly remunerat1Ve TO the
| lawyers. AS in this country; SO IN
| England, it is the poor man VINO Il1lds
| it impossible to get divorce anu ING
man of moderate means VINO linus ~
difficult. There are many cases f o.
nersons saving and scrimplng 1or
Years in order to free themselves
! from an intolerable marriage. Thefe
are MANY other cases in Engla1lu' do
| in this country, OF persons VINO my
separated, but are unable TO get u
vorce, and contract free unions,
though they would prefer marriage:
A great and increasing numper OF
"iudicial separations are granted III
England. and these, too, are produc-
tive of many extra-mar1taI relaI ~
In this way the severe divorce la I
tends to defeat the marllase nsmeciaIo
need for reform has become espeCla Ga
" pressing in England since the war,
Which created a great many causes
for divorce. 40
The new British measure is de,
signed to make divorce cheaper al"
itiative. In addition to this IT greaii-
| lv broadens the causes for Whlcn az az
vorce may be obtained. 1t proposes
the granting of divorce for adultery
cruelty, desertion for three years, m
c11rable insanity after five years
Confinement, drunkenness found TO
be incurable after three years, ven
ereal disease, or Imprisonment Tor
life after committed death sentence.
1t is evident that the most radlcaI
feature of this measure lies IN tna
clause which would allow divorce
after desertion for three years; rms
means in effect that couple may
separate for three years, and, after
this period of probation, get a d.
vorce upon prof f the separation,
The debate on the measure brought
out the fact that divorce and mar
riage are regarded still as largely re-
ligious questions. The question was
not argued primarily on practical
were REPRESENTATIVE which re-
CARDS marriage as an indlssoluble
union on religious grounds, ana that
which holds that Christ did not SO
the former view. The, Church of
England. on the other hand, holds
that according to Matthew, Christ
distinctly made an exception, saying
that divorce should be granted for
adultery. This, of course, is purely
layman's opinion is worth little. The
more liberal of the Protestant di-
vines hold that since Christ made one
exception, it is logical to hold that
He would have made others when
they were obviously necessary. One
of these advanced prelates goes so
far as to say that the teachings of
Christ are to be taken as highly
spiritual ideals rather than as rules
of practice. He points out that
Christ also bade us turn the other
cheek when we were assaulted, but
that few live up to this Injunction.
1t remains a high, though somewhat
neglected ideal of magnanimity a
self-control. # we enacted it into
statutes, self-defense would be a
crime and no action for damages
would stand. Christian ideals are by
no means disparaged, he argues but
statutes. which are matters of prac-
tlce, must always represent a COM
pr )mise with the ideal
The divorce situation in this coun-
tr-' differs from that in England in
that we have a different divorce law
in each state, and that the national
congress has never lcgislated on the
subject, except in regard to the Dis.
trict of Columbia. The absurdities
and injustice arising from this situa-
ton have been pointed out again and
again; the need for uniform di-
Vorce law has been proved to all and
sundry; but nothing has beer. done
ABOUT 1t and there is no good pros
pect that anything will be done
There is a strong religious sentiment
IN this country against liberal d-
vorce laws, and a strong states
rights sentiment against national
elements make of divorce a subject
which congress will gladly neglect
as long as it can, just as it neglect
ed the. prohibition and woman suf-
1fage issues for forty or fifty years
and met them only when it had to do
so.
There are forty-nine divorce laws
in the United States, and forty-two
dlfferent causes for which divorce
may be granted. A man may be
married to one woman in one state
a.ad another woman in another state,
TIE discrimination against the poor
man, and indeed against all except
Lhe really rich man, is more marked
here than in any other country in
the world Mary Pickford can 90 to to
Nevada and get divorce as easily
as YOU and I can go to a picture
show. For the rich. divorce is 80
~ a matter of desiring it, For the
Is difficult business for anv one