The Divorce Situation in England the Divorce Court sits only in London adds greatly to the hardship of those who live outside of the metropolitan district.
211
bauch his own female servants, and the bringing by him of groundless and ma
licious charges against his wife’s chastity were only held to be acts of legal cruelty
It fosters immorality, because it
to the extent that it was said of'them
pronounces adultery as indispensable to remarriage. 3. In allowing a separation, without the right of remarriage, for the offense
that they would weigh with t'he;Cou1it. in conjunction with other acharges.
2.
of cruelty, adultery, or desertion, and
(Id., page 123.)
This doctrine ham-e».
cently been partially abandonedffor‘fit
divorce, with the right of remarriage,
Walmesley v. Walmesley, heard in 1893, the Court broke away from the
for the ofiense of adultery, combined
theory so long followed, and “neglect,
with cruelty and desertion, it inflicts the greater punishment for the lesser of fense. 4. But, of course, the worst feature
coldness and insult, producing an attack of melancholia" were held to amount to legal cruelty. A still more liberal
is in attempting to establish an un equal and unnatural standard of mo
rality between the sexes, thereby com pelling woman to bear burdens to which man will not submit, for no matter how immoral a husband may be, his inno
cent wife has absolutely no remedy,
interpretation now seems to be favored. Indeed, the legal profession as well as the Courts have come to so thoroughly
realize the unsuitability of the present law to modern social conditions that the spirit and, in many instances, the letter of the law is violated and justice
unless she gets a judicial separation,
dealt out to the litigants in spite of the Acts of Parliament. An American,
which will make her condition even
upon a visit to the
worse than before, as she can then never obtain an absolute divorce, though the
courts, is at once impressed ‘by; the ease and rapidity with which divorces are granted. The chief opposition to any new or more liberal legislationfis,
least indiscretfon upon her part will per mit her immoral husband to secure a di
English divorce
vorce with the right to remarry.
that it will bring about a condition “as
The Civil Courts, until quite recently, followed the interpretation of the law laid down by the Ecclesiastical Courts, and did not recognize the doctrine
bad as exists in the Statesfi'r This, like many English ideas concerning things not English, is founded upon an amazing lack of knowledge of real
known as “moral cruelty,” and held that the cruelty must be physical. So, where a husband treated his wife with neglect and indifierence, ceased to have matrimonial intercourse with her, and carried on an adulterous intercourse
conditions.
After observing the prac
tice in divorce proceedings in quite a number of the states, and among them some of the most lenient, as well as the
proceedings in the English courts, I think I can safely say that there is not
with a servant in the same house where
a state in the Union where divorces
he and his wife were residing, it was held that, in the absence of any threats, or acts of positive violence, his conduct
are granted with greater facility, or
did not amount to legal cruelty. (Brown 8: Powles’ Law of Divorce, page 125.)
cases where the husband is plaintifi.
So, also, a husband's attempt to de
upon less specific evidence, than in England.
Especially is this true in
In fact, the practice is so marked that the writer inquired of a barrister how
