An important chapter in the modem history of di- Tce would treat of French legislation on that subject.
A law passed Sept 20, 1792, at the opening offtc tional Convention, overthrew the aackot law followed the Roman Catholic doctrine of i^nai opened the way for divorce on three grooDda. TW' are, 1, mutual consent; 2, incompadbilily of b^ on complaint of either consort; 8, certabi ' causes or motives derived from the duct of either of the married parties, vix. of reason, condemnation to an infamous cruelties, or grave injuries comniitted bj against the other, notorious liceatk>uoeas of mat desertion fbr at least two years, absence fir M fas five without sending news, and eznl^^ration bomfami in certain cases, which was natorally a vision. Separation of body, or a meata «( thereafter to be abolished, llie divorced , marry one another de novo, and coold many other pe^ sons after certain short intervals. To a ^Md iepet these enactments follow the Roman law, but om fcn- liarity of thb statute was that the fiunily id^:*? were to act in the first instance as a kind of atmn i conciliation, when the parties, or one of tbcoi, dess divorce without allegation of crime. Divwccs vs> now exceedingly frequent in France, but beeaae nc: more easy after the acts of 1793 and 1791, persiBk^A man to marry at once, and a woman ten maolhc i±9 divorce was granted ; and, wliat was fiur wane, aika; separation in fact of a married pair for eix boh^ cause for pronouncing them divorced withsst 4g^. if one of them demanded it. These laws beksf t^ the worst times of the Revolution, and wen s^8^»e^i^ in August, 1795. The original law of 1792 gare pkr in 1803 to the new divorce law of the Code daS, ir Code Nctpoieoriy which continued in force nntil the i«> toration of the Bourbons. The divorce law d Ik Code, although, in the main, agreeing with ^ k* of 1792 on the causes of divorce, does away v^ h family council, restores for the sak<e of r'^fWiKiK u< separation a tnerua et ikoro — ^which, however, noj in- ward be converted into a full divorce on the dci»i of the innocent married partner — provida fv fti punishment of the unfaithful wife, and in its msdk, tedious processes in the preparatory stepe, seess i> tended to make the obtaining of drvorccs by m^3^ consent, and on the ground of incompatibO^ of ta> per, very difficult, as well as to leave ro«n for cbi^ of mind. Moreover, the limits within which &im by mutual consent are confined is an obeemHe tsi In the right direction. The conrts, and sevenl S>- tinguished lawyers who were consulted on the anidB of the Code, were against granting divorce kxmxr patibillty of temper, i. e. on the g^ronnd of motail no sent in any cases, but they could not carry their yaat. After the restoration of the Bourbons, this titk sf i^ Code was abrogated, and France returned to the eui system, to which it has adhered, if we are not suitit en, until the present time.
In England, until after the Beformatioo, firvn e sentence of nullity, and divorce a mmta el A^ x the ground of adultery, were within the copaaaft of the ecclesiastical court, and no divorce a vmai> m known to the law. Henry VIII was separated frm Catharine by the ecclesiastical oonrt on the pka ;te a jnarriage with a brother's wife was vrnd ab mflia, ni therefore no marriage ; Anna Boleyn and Citfcini Howard were convicted of adultery, and exseoled a attainder of treason ; and Anne of Clevcs vas m^ nominally married. There was a prefect oads Ed- ward YI to allow the innocent partj, affcer seam* of divorce, to marry again, but it was never saiHtiRiii Still, since many, especially among the moire pB^e- ical clergy and laity, held such marriage to be b«M it was more or less practised. Men divorced oi ms- tence of a court from adulterous wives somirtiani ws- ried again (although the marriage was null and retf^ because there was no civil law to fbrbid it. h tb first year of James I a statute made lemarriBgeoi^
DIVORCE
843
DIV0RC3E
fetime of a fonner hosband or wife a felony, yet with ie provision that the act should not extend to persons Ivorced or to be divorced by sentence of an ecclesias- cal court. The matter was still at loose ends, bat sveral canons were passed in the same year with the itention of patting a stop to the practice, by one of rhich it was ordained that a sentence of divorce should ot be pronounced until the parties should have given [ifficient security to the court that they would not, ach daring the other^s lifb, contract matrimony with ny other person. This canon was violated in a most candalous way in 1605, soon after its enactment, when idy Rich, after being divorced fhmi her husband on he ground of her adulteiy, was married to her para- loor, baron Mountjoy, afterwards duke of Devon- hire, by his chaplain, Laud, who afterwards professed 0 repent of it. From the time of James, and, indeed, ince the Reformation, only a special act of Parliament oold authorize divorce a vinctdo untfl the passage of i new general act in 1857. By this act a new coort is istablished, having exclusive jurisdiction in cases of narriage, with the power of issuing sentences of sepa- -a/>oi»— equivalent to divorce a menta et thoro — ^which nay be obtained either by the husband or the wife on he ground of adulteiy, or cruelty, or desertion with- >at cause for two years and upwards ; and with the >ower of dissohinff nutrriage in cases of adulteiy. But ;he two parties are not exactly on a level with respect ;o their crime. On the wife's part, simple adultery ian have this eflfect, or the husband's ^Mncestnous idultery, bigamy with adultery, rape, sodomy, or bes- iality, or adultery coupled with such cruelty as, with- rat adultery, would have entitled her to a divorce a nensa et thoro, or adultery coupled with desertion for two years and upwards." In the case of separation, the court can restore the parties, on their consent and petition, to the exercise of conjugal rights. In the case of dissolution, after final decbion on appeal to the House of Lords, if such appeal should be made, the parties are allowed to many again, both the inno> cent and the guilty party, the latter, so far as appears, to the partner in crime— a provision, in our judgment, much to be condemned. Nor is there .any civil pen- alty for adultery. The innocent husband may, as be- fore this act, get damages from the offenders, but the former action for criminal conversation is to cease. We forbear to go further into the act, only adding that collusion, condonation of adultery^ adultery, cruelty, or desertion, on the part of the petitioning party, and un- reasonable delay in presenting the petition for dissolu- tion of marriage, free the«coart from th& obligation to pronounce a decree of dissolution.