Mr. A. P. Herbert undoubtedly deserves the tributes paid to his crusading zeal, tactical ability and profound study of his subject on the enactment of the Matrimonial Causes Bill which receives the Royal Assent this week. Those quotities, however, would have been of no avail had not the need for reform of the law relating to divorce been firmly impressed on the public mind. The difficulties usually experienced by [member in getting leg passed are well-known. Many examples can be quoted of reforms which have had to meet with disappointment session after session because the private sponsorship given to them could not secure Government assistance to overcome the difficulties of Parliamentary congestion. The Government's decision to adopt Mr. Herbert's Bill w the determining factor in ensuring its passage ant was obvious! inspired by the strength of evidence that the measure commanded widespread approval. Perhaps de-its fects, due to Mr. Herbert's perception of the need for compromi ihave contributed to this Although based largely on Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce, the new law does not entirely remove inconsistencies or in-justi Its chief merit is that il does go a long way to miti scandal which, the last twelve year The change which w: 1925 to meet the demand equality of the sexes in divorce making a single act of adultery ouse for action for the woman as as for the man, had an un-result, There was an immediate rise in the number of divorce cases. At first th was attributed to a concurrent reforms hich had severely restricted publi-the reporting of divorce It soon wi s found to de quite another cause. nappily married couples found that a long as the husband w give evidence of the misconduct their problem the inconvenience and disability previ In itself this may or may not havi been beneficial, but it actu [ied to what" is euphemist cally called synthetic divorce and incidentally, eliminated for al practical purposes t distinction bette "innocent" parties. Indeed, where the wife was a plaintiff to an undefended action it became customary to assume that the husband's alleged misconduct was a pretext to cover causes of disagreement of which [the Divorce Court could take no effective cognizance, Frequently the case was due to the husband's mi taken sense of chivalry in giving his wife a release which she desired on the ground that the stigma aching to a man was less serian:—and in practice, more easily and economically proved—than if the woman were cited as defendant, especially as, in the event of the wife having to be convicted of mis-he was always in danger by the third such there enough, the equalization of the sexes in divorce became an instrument for creating another inequality, this time to the detriment of the man.
Moreover, adultery to which neither might normally have never given a thought was deliberately to sec tire relief from real disies of another kind—temperamental differences, economic catastrophe or other breaches w would have been sufficient to give ounds for avoidance of ordinary civil contracts but could- not be cited to terminate marriage.
The new law does not entirely remove this grave source of scandal. It goes far to reduce into reasonable proportions and it enables the Courts to be more searching in the detection of collusion than they have been able to be in stemming the tide of "hotel bill" divorces. The Bill has managed to secure the virtual neutrality of ecclesiastical opinion because of the compromises which it has included—notably the clause barring a suit for divorce, except in special circumstances, until three years have elapsed since the marriage. Into the con-rovers of the Church's position it t necessary to enter. Yet it mus: be recognized that the further evidence of the cleavage of view between the Church and the Legis-nature on this subject gives rise to the belief that, sooner or later, the anomaly will have to be faced.
Whether the Church is right or wrong in holding itself free to ignore Parliamentary wishes, when it enjoys the status of an Established Church subject to Parliamentary control and possessed of special privileges for influencing Parliamentary action must be left to the individual to decide. It is significant, however, that, during the debate in the House of Lords on the Bill, humanitarian, practical and moral arguments found more vivid expression in the speeches of distinguished lawyers and judges supporting the Bill than in the contributions from Bishops. who—with the exceptions of the Bishops of Durham and Birmingham—seemed to confine themselves to dialectical disquisi tions on the alleged views of Christ, Had such dialectics been applied, for example, to the development of modern institutions, such as medicine, democratic ideals, or social reform, progress as the word is usually understood would fail altogether to command ecclesiastical sanction. The new law has been attacked as if there were hundreds of young people anxious to indulge matrimony on the trial and error plan, as if it marked a deterjoration in public morals. Historical surveys of the state of those morals in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries effectively refute such a contention. Those who lightly treat the marriage contract will be neither encouraged nor discouraged by the change in the law. Few enter that without a solemn desire to opt its obligations. The casualties which occur may be due to human error but they should evoke pity rather than condemnation, On that ground the new law has been framed. It seeks to safeguard marriage by eliminating the bondage and sanctifying the bond.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.