The question as to how our ridiculous and immoral system of divorce--(I
really must use those terms)--was ever permitted to come into use may be
answered very briefly. The Church ordained that marriage is
indissoluble, but, this being found impossible in practice, the State
stepped in with a way of escape--a kind of emergency exit. But what a
makeshift it was! how flagrantly dishonest, how indecent! Adultery must
be committed, and, in the case of the woman claiming relief, cruelty or
desertion must be added to the adultery. To escape the degradation of an
unworthy partner another partner must first be sought, home-life
wrecked by the worst kind of conduct, and marriage degraded by an act of
infidelity.
Now, this kind of thing is bad, and no possible shuffling can make it
right; it is, indeed, so offensive to the feelings of most of us that it
is very rarely, if ever, that the immoral and harmful way in which it
acts is put into plain words.
The divorce law with its materialistic refusal to accept any grounds for
divorce except physical infidelity, physical cruelty or desertion, makes
for a low view of marriage. Further, it directly encourages perjury, in
fact makes lying essential to obtaining the relief of the law. The law
refuses to legalize divorce by the consenting desire of both
parties--calls such a wise arrangement collusion; yet it cannot prevent
what everyone knows is done in the great majority of decently conducted
divorce suits, where desertion and infidelity take place by arrangement.
The law is very lenient to those who can pay for the best arrangements
for circumventing the law's intentions, but even in spite of the recent
concessions, is still hard on the ignorant poor and low class. The law
is a snob as well as a pedantic, pompous ass.
Some people may be disposed to believe that this very absurdity and
unfairness of the law acts to prevent divorce. I tell you it does not;
what it does do is to render decent and honest conduct quite impossible.
I know this. I speak because the evil that is going on ought to be
known. My own opposition to the law is not so much on account of the
difficulty in obtaining a divorce--for it is not nearly so difficult as
most people think; nor do I take exception, as is common with most
women, to the unequal moral standard required from men and women; all
this, as I have said, can easily be got over if you have money and a
sufficiently clever lawyer. No, my passionate opposition is directed
against the trickery and dishonesty made necessary by the law.
Let me prove this statement. To do so I will give brief details of four
divorce suits which I think will speak more forcibly than any words of
mine; in each case I know the facts I give are true.
_Case 1._--_A husband and wife, childless, desired to part, there was no
physical infidelity on either side, but love had died. Both partners
desired to remarry. The wife proved desertion against the husband
(arranged between them beforehand by the help of a lawyer). She had to
write and urgently entreat the man she desired to leave her to return! A
decree for the restitution of conjugal rights was granted to her
petition. Afterwards the husband had to commit adultery; (again arranged
by the help of the lawyer.) He took the woman he wished to make his
second wife for one night to an hotel. The decree_ nisi _was granted.
Then there was the six months waiting for the decree to be made
absolute. The King's Proctor made inquiries, it was found that the wife
also desired her freedom; the divorce was refused on the ground of
collusion. Four people were rendered desperately unhappy, compelled
either to part or to live together without marriage. This, as was to be
expected, they did, and children were born, of necessity
illegitimately._
_Case 2._--_In this case the husband loved his wife, but she had been
unfaithful to him and desired freedom to re-marry her lover. There were
no children. Because it was better for her, this wronged husband
arranged for his wife to divorce him, prove desertion and adultery.
There was a slight difficulty because it was the wife who had run away
from home. However, this was easily got over. The wife wrote begging
the husband to allow her to come home, representing that he had sent her
away. He then had to reply refusing her request, and while desiring
nothing on earth so much as her return to him, had to state he would
never live with her again. An act of adultery was then necessary, and as
this good and chivalrous husband was also an exceptionally moral man, he
took his sister to an hotel, and the divorce was granted on this: they,
of course, signing their names in the hotel register as Mr. and Mrs. X._
_Case 3._--_In this case the action of the parties is reversed. The
husband had committed adultery and wished his freedom to re-marry, but
he held a public position, and to be the guilty party in a divorce suit
meant social and financial ruin. The wife was innocent, and still loved
her husband, but because she felt it right to free him, an act of
adultery for her (not committed) was arranged. Both the decree_ nisi
_and the decree absolute were granted. Complications arose from the fact
that there were two children: as the "innocent" party custody was
granted to the father, but he did not want the children. So for the six
probationary months between the two decrees the children were placed
with friends. Afterwards they were given back by the father to the
mother._
When the decree of a divorce has been made absolute, you can fortunately
do what you like. During the six months probationary period, however,
the "innocent" partner (see Case 1) has to be so careful of his or her
conduct, that it is really much more convenient to be the "guilty"
partner. I mention this as a further proof of the absurdity of the law,
and the immoral way in which it acts.
_Case 4._--_This case was even more curious than the three I have given.
A very bad but beautiful woman had married a man younger than herself,
an idealist, chivalrous, and quite unusually moral. After a few years of
hell the marriage had to be ended. In kindness, and because she was a
woman, the man said she had better divorce him. Desertion was proved,
though it had not taken place. Trouble arose from the necessary act of
adultery, as it was against the principles of the husband even to appear
to commit it. The difficulty had, however, to be got over or the divorce
given up. It was done in this way: the man got his married sister to go
with her husband to an hotel, personating him and a woman, and signing
the hotel book with his name as Mr. and Mrs. ----. Now the strange fact
is that though there was no kind of similarity of appearance between the
brother-in-law and the husband, one being very dark and the other very
fair, one being short and the other tall, identity was established and
sworn to by the servant in the hotel where the night had been spent. How
this was arranged I do not know, but the decree_ nisi _and the decree
absolute were granted without any difficulties arising._
Now, none of these cases are unusual, with the possible exception of No.
4; similar divorce suits are heard each session, only that the way in
which the details have been arranged is carefully hidden, to prevent the
losing of the case on a charge of collusion. _The one absolute barrier
in this land to the breaking of a marriage is that both parties want it
to be broken._
It is obvious, surely, without any further argument, that laws making
perjury necessary, which demand the committing of acts of, often
pretended, infidelity, are immoral; nor is their immorality lessened by
the fact that through the rather heavy costs of these "arranged
suits,"[99:1] only the richer and more fortunate classes, as a rule,
are able to bring them.
I ask if this state of things is to be allowed to go on: are decent
people to be driven by the law to make use of such vile trickery? I say
"decent people" advisedly, for those who bring this kind of suit _are
decent_, wishing to act honorably and kindly, and carrying out the
always difficult severing of the marriage bond with as little pain as
possible. There are, I know, other divorce suits in which vindictiveness
and jealousy and anger are the ruling motives, but undefended and
"arranged" suits, more or less on the lines of those I have given, are
becoming more and more frequent. Each law session their number is
increasing. Personally, I regard this as an extraordinarily healthy
sign.
V
I hope I have now sufficiently proved that our unclean divorce laws can
do nothing to preserve the sanctity of marriage. If we know the facts,
to go on pretending that we believe this is to mark ourselves as
hypocrites. We need to get rid of a system that is as immoral in theory
as it is evil in practice.
But, unfortunately, the probability of the law being reformed does not
depend on the need for reform. How many people are affected? What votes
will the advocating of the reform gain? Grievances that will not gather
noisy crowds will continue unheeded. Modern parliaments are like badly
brought up children; they can be bribed with promises of votes or
frightened with fear of disorder, more easily than led by reason.