Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/893

Rh templating financing strike movements on a large scale in the United States in order to hamper the manufacture of munitions. At the instance of the United States Government Dr. Dumba was recalled. Count Bernstorff had previously been forced to apolo- gize for his want of diplomatic courtesy in publishing, without first submitting it to the American Government, a denunciation of the un-neutral conduct of that Government in permitting the export of munitions of war to the Allies. Even more serious, however, was the subsequent discovery (Oct.) that Captain Boy-Ed and Captain von Papen, the naval and military attaches to the German embassy, had been active in a plot to destroy American munition factories and American ships carrying munitions. Their subordinates, who were not covered by diplomatic immunity, were imprisoned; the two attaches were recalled at the instance of the United States Government. The same fate befell Count Luxburg, German minister in Buenos Aires, the author of the famous advice that ships carrying food from the Argentine to the Allies should be " spurlos versenkt " (sunk without leaving a trace). These notorious cases, character- istic of many others, involved no new statement of principle, for they were clearly condemned by the traditional standards of diplomacy. " The ambassador," Callieres had written in the i8th century, " may suborn the Prince's subjects for the purpose of obtaining information, but not for the purpose 6f plotting against their master." Equally clear was the principle con- demning the practice of the German diplomatists, especially in the United States, of plotting attacks on enemy states (e.g. Canada, Ireland) under cover of their immunities. This was an abuse of diplomatic privilege, since it injured the state in which the plots were hatched by imperilling its neutrality.

See Sir Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice (2 vols., 1917); Denys P. Myers, " Notes on the Control of Foreign Rela- tions," in part iii. of the Rccueil de Rapports of the Organisation Centrale pour une Paix durable (The Hague, 1917), pp. 285-382, an invaluable study of the essential conditions under which diplomacy works; Edward S. Corwin, The President's Control of Foreign Re- lations (1917) ; Sir Maurice Hankey, Diplomacy by Conference (1921). In Democracy and Diplomacy (1915) Mr. Arthur Ponsonby, who was in the diplomatic service from 1894 to 1903, puts the case for " demo- cratic control"; an appendix contains the findings of the Royal Commission. (W. A. P.) DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE: see WASHINGTON CONFERENCE. DIVORCE (see 8.334). (I.) UNITED KINGDOM. In the law of divorce administered in England and Wales there was no change between 1910 and 1921 except as to procedure by poor persons, and in Scotland and Ireland there was no change at all. But in England since 1910 the subject has become one of acute controversy, and there has also been a remarkable increase in the number of divorces granted. The report of the Royal Com- mission appointed in 1909 was not published till 1912. The appointment of the Commission, and the Majority Report advo- cating increased facilities for divorce, were both backed by an influential body of prominent persons outside the Commission itself. The inquiry was dominated throughout by the late Lord Gorell (formerly Sir Gorell Barnes) who had previously prac- tised in and presided over the Divorce Court, and who held very strong views in favour of the extension both of the reasons and facilities for divorce in all classes of society. But the recom- mendations of the Majority Report have been strenuously opposed, especially in the Church of England, which has been practically unanimous in condemning the present system of divorce and opposing its extension.

Most of the recommendations of the Commission were, how- ever, embodied in a bill which passed the House of Lords in 1920, but was abandoned in the House of Commons. A new bill was introduced in the House of Lords in 1921 by Lord Gorell, the son of the chairman of the Commission mentioned above. The bill is based on the recommendations in which all the members of the Commission were in accord. The Lord Chancellor has also presented a report embodying the reform of procedure so as to give easier divorce to the poorer classes.

The Commission took evidence from lawyers and officials to a much greater extent than from any other class, and much of the Majority Report was highly technical and official. The point of

view of the ordinary man and woman is better represented by the Minority Report, published in 1912 in the same Blue Book (Cd. 6478). Women were represented on the Commission by Lady Frances Balfour and Mrs. H. J. Tennant the latter of whom added a valuable separate memorandum to the Majority Report. The Minority Report agrees to certain changes in procedure in- tended to bring divorce within the means of labour and the poor middle-class, but strongly warns the public on the experience of France and America not to extend the reasons for divorce.

The recommendations of the Commission are given below, those embodied in the two bills presented being distinguished from those rejected or ignored. Following the report of the Commission, the scheme of bill No. i was to save expense by bringing the court locally to the home of the applicant. This was to be effected by rules giving power to certain selected county court judges to act as judges in divorce and other matri- monial causes. Each cause for divorce or nullity or judicial separation was available by this bill to either husband or wife so that it was intended that, e.g. adultery or desertion alone should in future enable a wife to obtain a divorce and vice versa, the sexes being treated on an absolute equality.

The causes for divorce included in No. i bill (1920) are (a) adultery, (b) desertion, (c) cruelty, (d) insanity continuous for five years and certified as incurable, (e) " incurable habitual drunkenness. " Any one of these causes was to be sufficient. A cause rejected by the bill was imprisonment in lieu of com- muted sentence of death. Causes rejected by the Commission were disease (except as below), unconquerable aversion, and mutual consent. In addition to the above the causes in the bill for which nullity of a marriage can be obtained are (a) physical incapacity, (b) unsound mind or epilepsy at the time of marriage or within six months after, (c) venereal disease communicable at the time of marriage, (d) pregnancy at the time of marriage caused by some person other than the husband. Permanent judicial separation is allowed in the (1920) bill on any ground available for divorce, and the court may in its discretion convert the decree for judicial separation into a decree nisi for divorce, unless the applicant prefers to have the application dismissed. These last provisions are as recommended by the Commission to meet the conscientious scruples of the vast majority of the Church of England as well as of Roman Catholics and others who object to any divorce which enables either party to remarry.

Besides the consideration of what should be the grounds for divorce in future, the commissioners were most anxious to bring " the benefits of the law " to the poor and to remove the com- plaint that divorce is still the privilege of the comparatively rich. This the majority recommended should be done by selecting some of the county court judges to go round and hold divorce courts locally. A step in this direction was taken in the Adminis- tration of Justice Act (Dec. 23) 1920, which provided for divorce cases being heard at Assizes. The right to a jury was retained.

The bill presented by Lord Gorell in 1921 makes adultery by either husband or wife sole cause for divorce, but a marriage can be made null and void for (a) incapacity or wilful refusal to consum- mate, (b) unsound mind or epilepsy under certain conditions, (c) venereal disease at the time of marriage or (d) pregnancy by some person other than the husband existing at the time of marriage. With regard to (b), (c), and (d) the applicant must prove that at the time of marriage he or she was ignorant of the fact alleged ; proceed- ings must be taken within a year from marriage and marital inter- course must not have taken place after discovery of the fact alleged by the applicant. Connivance, condonation and collusion by the applicant bar his application and remain absolute defences as before. The Court is to have a discretion to override the following defences: adultery, cruelty, desertion, unreasonable delay, neglect or mis- conduct by the applicant. Judicial separation can be obtained for habitual drunkenness if the applicant has used all reasonable means to reform the defendant and has not caused or conduced to it by his own conduct. Presumption of death can be decreed by the Court in proper cases and in particular where defendant has not been known by the applicant to be living for seven years. Juries in matrimonial cases are abolished by the bill, as are damages against the co- respondent beyond the actual pecuniary loss sustained by the ap- plicant, but the co-respondent may be ordered to pay the whole of the costs and to settle property or make payments to " the parties to the marriage or either of them or the children of the marriage " according to his or her ability. It is clearly intended to make women