MR. HERBERT'S MARRIAGE BILL
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Surely the matter in question in the significant corre- spondence printed by you under the above heading, is not whether the working classes shall have the advantages of expert modem psychology, and the right of consultation. These they should certainly have. But are these benefits offered in the interests of individual happiness and dignity, or in order to bolster up the institution of marriage ?
The five-years'-period—of shall I say probation or expiation ? —before a divorce may be demanded is almost derisory and quite indefensible. Even a waiting period of two years, provided both parties want divorce, seems needlessly obstructive, and a relic of the belief that divorce in any circumstances was dangerous, discreditable and to be avoided.
But perhaps these proposed reforms will do good, in as much as intelligent and independent persons may more and more refuse to have their lives and loves tangled up and spoiled by a mess of ' archaic laws and piecemeal patching ; and will make their own contracts and standards, which the law must finally accept.I am, Sir, yours faithfully, [If two people are so uncertain of their emotions that they cannot last out two years together, that is a_ very good reason for their not contracting the serious obligations of marriage at all. Marriage today, divorce tomorrow, is not an ideal that deserves support. —En. The Spectator.]
Previous page
