Marriage laws (1918)

Post date: Feb 03, 2014 5:41:29 PM

Extract from Parish magazine of February 1918

THE MARRIAGE LAWS,

The Enrolling Members of the Wateringbury Branch of the Mother's Union has received the following letter from Colonel Warde, M.P., of Barham Court, dated Jan. 25th : —

DEAR MR. LIVETT,

Thank you for letting me have the numerously signed Resolution on the subject of a proposed new Divorce Bill. I am entirely in sympathy with its purport.

Sincerely yours.

C. E. Warde

The Bill referred to is one which The Marriage Laws Reform Union is trying to introduce into Parliament with the evident intention of getting it passed into law under circumstances which make it impossible that the subject should have the attention it deserves. Its proposals, if they became law would vitally affect the social conditions of the people. Its opponents must not be caught napping. In common fairness to the women of this country, who are soon to be enfranchised, the introduction of any Bill dealing with the Divorce Laws should be delayed until they have got the vote and can make their influence felt at the polls.

The following is the text of the proposed Bill, with a few brief explanations in brackets: —

1. This Act [or Bill] may be cited as the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1917 [1918].

2. From and after the passing of this Act [Bill] all decrees for a judicial separation [granted by the High Court in London], and all orders for a separation by any Court of summary jurisdiction [e.g. a Police Court], shall, after a period of three years from the date thereof [i.e.from the date of the decree or order] have the same effect and force as a decree absolute for the dissolution of marriage [i.e., as a decree of divorce a vincula from the marriage tie], provided always that either the husband or wife so separated [by separation decree or order] shall make application to the Court which has made the decree or order in question, and satisfy the said Court that cohabitation has not been resumed during the said period of three years.

3. It shall also be lawful for any husband or wife to present a petition to the High Court of Justice [i.e., the Divorce Court in London], praying that his or her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that they have been separated for the said period [? instead of the said period read a period] of three years whether by mutual consent or for any other reason.

The purpose of the Bill is quite plain: if it were passed, then (a) by clause 2, after three years non-cohabitation a separation order might be changed into a decree of divorce, with liberty to contract a fresh marriage, by the simple process of making application to the Court ; (b) in cases where there has been no previous application to a Court, and therefore no separation decree or order obtained, the simple fact of actual separation of husband and wife for three years would enable either of them to apply and obtain a decree of divorce either with or without the knowledge or consent of the other party. To take an extreme case: the effect of the third clause would be as follows: if a husband had been absent abroad or elsewhere, say on military service in India, for three years, then the wife may demand and obtain a decree of divorce from him; or, if a married couple separate by agreement for three years, they may, either of them, at the end of that period, go to the High Court and obtain a decree of divorce. In other words they would be able to get what is called " divorce by mutual consent."

If such a Bill became law the result would be that many a home would be broken up by triffling difficulties which, if the parties had to continue to live together, would serve to cement affection rather than alienate it; and many a young couple would become engaged and married with a feeling in the back of their minds that the marriage contract is not permanently binding, that it can be undertaken as an experiment, and if after a time it does not seem successful they can easily get a divorce and try again with fresh partners.

The proposed Bill was explained to a meeting of the Mothers' Union held in the Church Rooms on Sunday, January 20th, with Mrs. Warburton in the chair, and after careful consideration the following resolution was passed and signed by all the 29 members present. Copies were subsequently Mrs. Harmer, Diocesan President, to Colonel Warde, who replied in the letter quoted above, and to the Prime Minister, by whom it was suitably acknowledged. The Resolution : —

This meeting of the Wateringbury Branch of the Mothers' Union emphatically and unanimously protests

(1) against any legislation tending to weaken the life-long bond of Marriage, and so to endanger the happiness of Home Life and the welfare of the children of the nation ;

(2) and against the proposed Matrimonial Causes Bill in particular, both on the grounds mentioned above and also on the ground that its provisions are inconsistent with the reasoned conclusions and recommendations of both the Majority and the Minority Report of The Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.

The two parts of this Resolution were separately put and voted upon at the meeting. It was realised that the whole ground was really covered by the first part, drafted by the authorities of the Union, with the introducing words " In view of the proposed Matrimonial Causes Bill"; but it was thought well to add the second part in order to avoid a possible impression that the Resolution was intended as a protest against any suggestion of reform of the Marriage Laws, which is most needed, and in order to draw special attention to the failure of the proposed Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

At the close of the meeting a member suggested that other parishioners should be given a chance of signing such a Resolution. This shall be done.

Moreover, at a meeting of the Mailing Ruri-decanal Chapter, held subsequently in the Church Rooms, it was a Wateringbury Lay Representative who, when the action of the Mothers' Union was reported, remarked that fathers as well as mothers should be afforded an opportunity of protesting against the proposals. In this parish fathers shall have an opportunity.

It has since been suggested that the best form of protest would be by Petition to Parliament. If this meets with general approval arrangements can be made for the circulation, from house to house, of two identical forms of Petition, one to be signed by husbands only, the other by other adult parishioners, male and female. No one may sign two such petitions, but mothers who signed the Resolution may sign again. The Petition might be drawn up somewhat on the lines of the Resolution.

The reference to the Royal Commission in the second part of the Resolution calls for some explanation ; and the explanation requires some preliminary considerations. They must be put very concisely.

The relations of Church and State are sometimes puzzling, especially in respect of Marriage Law. Our Lord never legislated: He made no laws: He simply laid down general principles of thought and conduct, principles that hold good for all time and all people. He declared ideals, and left it to his followers to regulate their life in accordance with His ideals. The Church cannot pretend to make laws for folk who are not Church-folk: all she can do is to try and influence them indirectly by upholding Christian ideals. And the Christian ideal of marriage is that it is a sacred, life-long, unbreakable bond, spiritual and physical, between man and woman, for mutual help and the uplifting of children. For the truly Christian husband and wife the severance of the bond is unthinkable: for them there is one simple Marriage Law: they have no need of Divorce Laws. But men and women are not all Christians, and Christians, too, are frail and sinful: so the State, which has to legislate for all alike, formulates its Marriage Laws and establishes its Courts for the protection and relief of those who may have been sinned against by the breaking of the marriage bond by their partner's adultery or desertion or persistent cruelty. A wise State makes such laws as shall neither be so hard as to lead to their common disregard, nor be so lax as to weaken the general feeling of the sanctity of marriage. And the Church, where she is wise, recognises the difficulty of the State's task in this matter, and does all in its power to render it assistance, so that public morality may be encouraged and enhanced.

In the year 1909 the King appointed a Commission of wise and experienced subjects to enquire into the existing Marriage Laws and their administration, and to suggest such amendments as might seem to them to be advisable for the general welfare of the country. This Royal Commission sat for three years, took the evidence of about 230 witnesses from all sections of the people, and drew up two Reports—one, the Majority Report, embodying the conclusions and recommendations of nine of the Commissioners; the other, the Minority Report, of three Commissioners who, thinking that the general principles which the majority adopted for their guidance did not accord sufficiently closely with the Christian ideal, disagreed with some of their colleagues' conclusions, and recommended less drastic alterations of the existing laws. The Majority Report fills 170 pages, and the other Report 20 pages, of a large-page Blue Book. No doubt a Government Bill based on a careful consideration of these Reports would have been introduced into Parliament but that the war intervened and put it out of the question. And now The Marriage Laws Reform Union have drafted their brief, ill-timed, ill-considered Bill, and are pressing for its introduction as a private measure. They have obtained promise of support from a number of members of Parliament, who under the present stress of war-business cannot possibly have given it the consideration so grave a matter merits. The principal argument recently advanced in its favour is that it would enable a number of people who are separated or unhappily married to contract fresh unions and so increase the population depleted by war ! Its chief promoter is a man who never misses an opportunity in the public press of sneering at "ecclesiastics." The provisions show an utter disregard for the ideas of wise statesmen, some of whom, while they could never be charged with having ecclesiastical tendencies, nevertheless do recognise the value of religion and also of legal restraints in promoting the moral welfare of mankind. It throws all restraints to the winds. Its provisions would place Society on a slippery slope leading to " free love," and the ruin of family life. Doubtless its promotors would disclaim this, but such would be the inevitable effect if the Bill passed into law.

By the existing law separation under an order of the Court is permanent. The Majority Report condemns this system and would like to abolish it altogether, but finding it difficult to do so, it recommends that no separation order should have effect for a period longer than two years, and that at the end of that period any such order should be determined either by reconciliation or, if the grounds be sufficient, by divorce. Two or three pages of the Report are devoted to summarising evidence tending to prove the disastrous results of this system and the need of restricting its operation within the narrowest possible limits. " I would not have separation—it is a living death," wrote a President of the Divorce Court "A situation more provocative of temptation and scandal cannot be imagined," says an American judge. In a summary of reports received from the officials of 25 centres of the Mothers' Union the system is condemned by no fewer than 22, though several say the result is not so pernicious in the case of wives as in that of husbands. Here are examples: 1. (a) In the case of husbands, immorality;(b) in that of wives in some cases immorality, in others starvation. 2. (c) Immorality with housekeeper; (d) destitution causing women to live with any man who offers a home for herself and children. 3. Bad in both cases , but more invariably so as regards the husband.

In the face of such evidence it is surprising to find the Minority Report declaring that "on the whole the present system of separation orders .... probably fulfils its purpose fairly well". But its authors assert that it is " in need of considerable amendment," and they add—" we are largely in agreement with the recommendations of our colleagues [of the Majority Report] for a more careful restricted exercise of the powers of magistrates to order separation."

Thus it is seen that the Commissioners are unanimous in recommending a restriction of the system of separation orders. They suggest that the duration of such orders should be limited to two years. By its second clause the proposed Bill would extend the limit to three years. The Bill is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Report of the Commissioners.

The third clause of the Bill, by allowing divorce by consent or mutual agreement, runs directly counter to the conclusions of the Commissioners, who dismiss any such proposal without hesitation.

The aim of legislation should be not to encourage laxity of ideas about the sanctity of marriage, but to brace people up to preserve and improve the moral tone of Society. Let us profit by the experience of the United States of America. Their legislation has for some time had a down-grade tendency. Their statesmen are beginning to see its evils and to advocate restriction. This is what President Roosevelt said :—

Easy divorce is a bane to any nation. It is a curse to society and a menace to the home; an incitement to married unhappiness, and an evil thing for men, and a still more hideous evil for women.

NOTES AND NOTICES.

The Wateringbury Troop of B.P. Boy Scouts and Pack of Wolf Cubs gave three performances of the Pantomime " Jack and the Beanstalk" on Wednesday and Thursday, Jan. 23rd the third performance being an extra one, owing to so many people being unable to obtain admission on Wednesday evening. The schoolroom was full again on Thursday evening. The chief characters in the pantomime were taken as follows:—Jack the German Killer (P.L. George Shepherd) Hokum Pokum (P.L. Reg. Rogers), Fairy of Light (P.L. Fred. Green), Princess Pretty Eyes ( Qm. William Stone), Ogoe Fe Fo Fum (Qm. A. Jukes), Dame Dido (Qm. Cecil Curd). Other scouts came on as Sailors, Policemen, etc., whilst the Wolf Cubs appeared as a pretty little party of girl gleaners and danced quite creditably. Mr. and Mrs. Edgar A. Smith (S.M. and C.R., respectively) assisted in many ways, taking parts in the plot, Town Crier, coppersmith, nurse, stage manager, a musical farmer, prompter, etc., etc. Miss H. King did good service at the pianoforte, and Mrs. Green assisted Smith in preparing the boys who acted in female parts. Messrs. H. F. Green, G. Rogers, Gunner and Miss Goldsack also assisted with the tickets and the door. The chief actors mentioned above all did well, in fact all the Scouts and Cubs worked hard to make the entertainment a success. The total takings (including sale of programmes, kindly printed by Mr. H. F. Green) amounted to £13 4s. 2d.; which has been equally shared (without any deductions for expenses) between the V.A.D. Hospital, Hale Place, Maidstone, and the Troop Funds.—E.A.S.

The Vicar has been asked to resume the C.R.U. meetings for Bible study that have from time to time for many years been held at the Vicarage during the winter months. He will do so at once if a sufficient number of people intimate to him (verbally or in writing) on or before Tuesday, the 12th, that they wish to attend. He would like to take some such subject as "The Jews and Jerusalem in the Bible and modern times," illustrated by such maps and photographs as he possesses. It is suggested that the meetings be held at 3 p.m. on Fridays during Lent, to last for not more than one hour.

In view of darkness and air-raids¹ it may be well in the early part of this Lent to try an experiment of holding Evensong (with short reading or address) at 4 p.m. instead of at 5.30. might be altered.

Rainfall:—Dec., 1917: 1'95 ins. Total in year 1917 : 29-04 ins. Jan., 1918 : 2'95 ins .

A.L.

Notes

1. Air raids (mainly by Zepplins, but also later in war by Gotha bombers on London) caused about 850 civilian deaths in WW1 compared top 60,000 in WW2 but had a disproportionate psychological effect.