History of Divorce in United Kingdom

Summary

“Although Henry VIII is usually described -in accordance to Bamber Gascoigne´ Encyclopedia of Britain about “law” – as having divorced Catherine of Aragon, he in fact arranged for Cranmer to annul his marriage – to declare not that it had ended, but that it had never begun. Subsequently parliament became the only body in Britain which could end a marriage by divorce, but this process was so lengthy and expensive that it was only open to the very rich; in more than 250 years, from 1602 to 1859, there were only 317 parliamentary divorces. The breakdown of a marriage more often resulted in a *common law action brought by the husband against another man for the offence of crim. con. Short for criminal conversation, and meaning adultery, this crime had the legal status of trespass – on the husband’s property, his wife. This was the charge brought unsuccessfully by George Norton against Lord *Melbourne.

Crim. con. was rendered obsolete by the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, which for the first time made it possible to obtain a divorce in the courts on the grounds of adultery. But this was available only to the husband, for whom it was enough to prove a single act of infidelity on his wife’s part; the wife, by contrast, had to prove that an adulterous husband was also cruel, or had committed sodomy, rape, incest or bigamy, or that he had deserted her for two years or more.

This inequality survived until 1923, when a single act of adultery by the husband became sufficient for the wife to obtain a divorce. Subsequent campaigns, boosted by A.P. Herbert’s satirical novel Holy Deadlock (1934), added cruelty and desertion as grounds for divorce even if adultery was not proved. But any couple wishing to divorce simply because their marriage had failed still had to go through an embarrassing charade, in which the husband would arrange to meet a woman and a private detective in a seedy hotel so that the court could be provided with apparent evidence of adultery.

The Divorce Reform Act of 1969 introduced the concept which is central to modern divorce law in Britain – the right to a divorce, if both partners wish it, without legal guilt on either side. All that the court required under the new law was proof of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. In addition to the previous ways of proving this, such as adultery or cruelty, it became sufficient for the couple to have lived apart for two years (if both parties wanted the divorce) or for five years (if only one wanted it). The act ruled out divorce within the first three years of marriage, but this period has subsequently been reduced to one year. Divorces are granted in two stages: the decree nisi is a provisional divorce (nisi is Latin for ‘unless’), which may be cancelled if good cause is shown; the decree absolute, completing the process, usually follows six weeks later.

The number of divorces in Britain doubled after the 1969 act, as people trapped in unhappy marriages took the first easy opportunity to break free. The annual rate continued to drift up during the 1970s, but it has remained fairly level since about 1980. Nevertheless a statistical projection forward, based on contemporary figures, suggests that more than one in three marriages taking place in the early 1990s will end in divorce.”

Historical Development

In England the law of divorce, originally based on the canon law of Rome, underwent some, though little, permanent change at the Reformation, but was profoundly modified by the exercise of the power of the state through legislation. From the canon law was derived the principle that divorce could legally take place only by sentence of the court, and never at the will of the parties. Complete divorce has never been governed by any other principle than this; and in so far as an incomplete divorce has become practicable at the will of the parties, it has been by the intervention of civil tribunals and contrary to the law of the ecclesiastical courts. Those courts adopted as ground for divorce a mensa et thoro the main grounds allowed by Roman canon law, adultery and cruelty (Ayliffe, 22; Co. Lit. 102; 1 Salk. 162; Godolphin Abridg. 495). The causes of heresy and of entering into religion, if ever they were recognized in England, ceased to exist at the Reformation.

The principles upon which the English ecclesiastical courts proceeded in divorce a mensa et thoro are those which are still in force, and which (with some modification by statutory enactment) have been administered by judicial tribunals down to the present day. The courts by which the ecclesiastical law, and therefore the law of divorce, was administered were, until 1857, the courts of the various dioceses, including that of the archbishop of Canterbury, known as the Court of Arches, and that of the archbishop of York, known as the Consistory Court of York; but by statute a suitor was prevented from taking proceedings in any court except that determined by the residence of the person against whom proceedings were taken (23 Hen. VIII. c. 9). From these courts an appeal lay to delegates appointed in each case by the crown, until the establishment of the judicial committee of the privy council in 1836, when the appeal was given to the crown as advised by that body.

The proof of adultery (to which Isidore in his Book of Etymologies gives the fanciful derivation of “ad alterius thorum”) was not by the canon law as received in England restricted by the operation of arbitrary rules. It was never, for example, required, as by the law of Mahomet, that the act should have been actually seen by competent witnesses, nor even that the case should be based on any particular kind of proof. It was recognized that the nature of the offence almost inevitably precluded direct evidence. One rule, however, appears to have commended itself to the framers of the canon law as too general in its application not to be regarded as a principle. The mere confession of the parties was not regarded as a safe ground of conviction; and this rule was formulated by a decretal epistle of Pope Celestine III., and, following it, by the 105th of the Canons of 1604. This rule has now been abrogated; and no doubt it is wiser not to fetter the discretion of the tribunal charged with the responsibility of deciding particular cases, but experience of divorce proceedings tends to confirm the belief that this rule of the canon law was founded on an accurate appreciation of human nature.

Although, therefore, with the above exception, no strict rules of the evidence necessary to establish adultery have ever been established in the English courts, experience has indicated, and in former days judges of the ecclesiastical courts often expressed, the lines upon which such proof may be expected to proceed. It is necessary and sufficient, in general, to prove two things—first the guilty affection towards each other of the persons accused, and, secondly, an opportunity or opportunities of which, if so minded, their passion may have been gratified. It is obvious that any strong proof on either of these points renders strict proof on the other less needful; but when proof on both is afforded, the common sense of a tribunal, acting with a knowledge of human nature, may be trusted to draw the inevitable conclusion.

The definition of cruelty accepted by the ecclesiastical courts as that of the canon law is the same as that which prevails at the present time; and the view of the law taken by the House of Lords in Russell v. Russell (1897 App. Cas. 395) was expressly based on the view of cruelty taken by the authorities of the ecclesiastical law. The best definition by older English writers is probably to be found in Clarke’s Praxis (p. 144): “Si maritus fuerit erga uxorem crudelis et ferax ac mortem comminatus et machinatus fuerit, vel eam inhumaniter verbis et verberibus tractaverit, et aliquando venenum loco potus paraverit vel aliquod simile commiserit, propter quod sine periculo vitae cum marito cohabitare aut obsequia conjugalia impendere non audeat … consimili etiam causa competit viro contra mulierem.”

Lord Stowell, probably the greatest master of the civil and canon law who ever sat in an English court of justice, has in one of his most famous judgments (Evans v. Evans, 1790, 1 Hagg. Consist. 35) echoed the above language in words often quoted, which have constituted the standard exposition of the law to the present day. “In the older cases,” he said, “of this sort which I have had the opportunity of looking into, I have observed that the danger of life, limb or health is usually insisted as the ground upon which the court has proceeded to a separation. This doctrine has been repeatedly applied by the court in the cases which have been cited. The court has never been driven off this ground. It has always been jealous of the inconvenience of departing from it, and I have heard no one case cited in which the court has granted a divorce without proof given of a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt. I say an apprehension, because assuredly the court is not to wait till the hurt is actually done; but the apprehension must be reasonable: it must not be an apprehension arising from an exquisite and diseased sensibility of mind.

Petty vexations applied to such a constitution of mind may certainly in time wear out the animal machine, but still they are not cases of legal relief; people must relieve themselves as well as they can by prudent resistance, by calling in the succours of religion and the consolation of friends; but the aid of courts is not to be resorted to in such cases with any effect.” The risk of personal danger in cohabitation constituted, therefore, the foundation of legal cruelty. But this does not exclude such conduct as a course of persistent ill-treatment, though not amounting to personal violence, especially if such ill-treatment has in fact caused injury to health. But the person complaining must not be the author of his or her own wrong. If, accordingly, one of the spouses by his or her conduct is really the cause of the conduct complained of, recourse to the court would be had in vain, the true remedy lying in a reformation of the real cause of the disagreement.

In addition to a denial of the charge or charges, the canon law allowed three grounds of answer:

(1) Compensatio criminis, a setoff of equal guilt or recrimination. This principle is no doubt derived from the Roman law and it had the effect of refusing to one guilty spouse the remedy of divorce against the other although equally guilty. It was always accepted in England, although not in other countries, such as France and Scotland, which also followed the canon or civil law. In strictness, recrimination applied to a similar offence having been committed by the party charging that offence. But a decision (1888) of the English courts shows that a wife who had committed adultery could not bring a suit against her husband for cruelty (Otway v. Otway 13 P. D. 141).

(2) Condonation. If the complaining spouse has, in fact, forgiven the offence complained of, that constitutes a conditional bar to any proceedings. The main and usual evidence of such forgiveness is constituted by a renewal of marital intercourse, and it is difficult-perhaps impossible-to imagine any case in which such intercourse would not be held to establish condonation. But condonation may be proved by other acts, or by words, having regard to the circumstances of each case. Condonation is, however, always presumed to be conditional on future good behaviour, and misconduct even of a different kind revives the former offence.

(3) Connivance constitutes a complete answer to any charge. Nor need the husband be the active agent of the misconduct of the wife. Indifference or neglect imputable to a corrupt intention are sufficient. It will be seen presently that modern statute law has gone further in this direction. It is to be added that the connivance need not be of the very act complained of, but may be of an act of a similar kind. A learned judge, recalling the classical anecdote of Maecenas and Galba, said, “A husband is not permitted to say non omnibus dormio.” The 338 ecclesiastical courts also considered themselves bound to refuse relief if there was shown to be collusion between the parties.

In its primary and most general sense collusion was understood to be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of deceiving the court by false or fictitious evidence; for example, an agreement to commit, or appear to commit, an act of adultery. Collusion, however, is not limited to the imposing of other than genuine evidence on the court. It extends to an agreement to withhold any material evidence; and indeed is carried further, and held to extend to any agreement which may have the effect of concealing the real and complete truth from the court (see Churchward v. Churchward, 1894, p. 161). This doctrine was of considerable importance even in the days when only divorces a mensa et thoro were granted, because at that time the parties were not permitted to separate by consent. At the present day it has become, with regard to divorce a vinculo matrimonii, a rule of greater and of more far-reaching importance.

Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Courts

The canon law as accepted in England, while allowing divorces of the nature and for the causes above mentioned, actively interfered to prevent separation between husband and wife in any other manner. A suit known as a suit for restitution of conjugal rights could be brought to compel cohabitation; and on evidence of the desertion of either spouse, the court ordered a return to the matrimonial home, though it carried no further its authority as to the matrimonial relations within the home. To this suit an agreement between the parties constituted no answer. But an answer was afforded by any conduct which would have supported a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro. It is a question whether, indeed, the ecclesiastical courts would not have gone further, and refused a decree of restitution of conjugal rights on grounds which might appear adequate to justify such refusal, though not sufficient on which to ground a decree of divorce. The view of the court of appeal and the House of Lords has given some colour to this opinion, and certainly the court of appeal has held, although perhaps somewhat hastily, that the effect of a modern statute has been to allow the court to refuse restitution of conjugal rights for causes falling short of what would constitute ground for divorce (Russell v. Russell, 1895, p. 315).

The ecclesiastical courts provided for the pecuniary rights of the wife by granting to her alimony during the progress of the suit, and a proper allowance after its termination in cases in which she was successful. Such payments were dependent on the pecuniary means, or faculties, as they were termed, of the husband, and were subject to subsequent increase or diminution in proper cases. But the ecclesiastical courts did not deal with the custody of the children of the marriage, it being probably considered that that matter could be determined by the common law rights of the father, or by the intervention of the court of chancery.

The canon law fixed no period of limitation, either in respect of a suit for divorce or for restitution of conjugal rights; but, as regards at least suits for divorce, any substantial delay might lead to the imputation of acquiescence or even condonation. To that extent, at least, the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt applied.

It is remarkable that desertion by either party to a marriage, except as giving rise to a suit for restitution, was not treated as an offence by canon law in England. It formed no ground for a suit for divorce, and constituted no answer to such a suit by way of recrimination. It might indeed deprive a husband of his remedy if it amounted to connivance, or perhaps even if it amounted only to culpable neglect.

The canon law, as administered in England, has kept clear the logical distinction which exists between dissolving a marriage and declaring it null and void. The result has been that, in England at least, the two proceedings have never been allowed to pass into one another, and a complete divorce has not been granted on pretence of a cause really one for declaring the marriage void ab initio. But for certain causes the courts were prepared to declare a marriage null and void on the suit of either party. There is, indeed, a distinction to be drawn between a marriage void or only voidable, though in both cases it became the subject of a similar declaration. It was void in the cases of incapacity of the parties to contract it, arising from want of proper age, or consanguinity, or from a previous marriage, or from absence of consent, a state of things which would arise if the marriage were compelled by force or induced by fraud as to the nature of the contract entered into or the personality of the parties.

It is to be remarked that, in England at least, the idea of fraud as connected with the solemnization of marriage has been kept within these narrow limits. Fraud of a different kind, such as deception as to the property or position of the husband or wife, or antecedent impurity of the wife, even if resulting in a concealed pregnancy, has not in England (though the last-mentioned cause has in other countries) been held a ground for the vitiation of a marriage contract. A marriage was voidable, and could be declared void, on the ground of physical incapacity of either spouse, the absence of intercourse between the parties after a sufficient period of opportunity being almost, if not quite, conclusive on this subject.

With regard to one cause of nullity the legislation interfered from consideration, it is said, of a case of special hardship. Before the Marriage Act of 1835 marriages within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity were only voidable by a decree of the court, and remained valid unless challenged during the lifetime of both the parties. But this act, while providing that no previous marriage between persons within the prohibited degrees should be annulled by a decree of the ecclesiastical court pronounced in a suit depending at the time of the passing of the act, went on to render all such marriages thereafter contracted in England “absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes whatever.”

Another suit was allowed by the ecclesiastical courts which should be mentioned, although its bearing on divorce is indirect. This was the suit for jactitation of marriage, which in the case of any person falsely asserting his or her marriage to another, allowed such person to be put to perpetual silence by an order of the court. This suit, which has been of rare occurrence (though there was an instance, Thompson v. Rourke, in 1892), does not appear to have been used for the purpose of determining the validity of a marriage. The legislature, has, however, in the Legitimacy Declaration Act of 1858, provided a ready means by which the validity of marriages and the legitimacy of children can be determined, and the procedure provided has repeatedly been utilised.

It should be added, as a matter closely akin to the proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts, that the common law took cognizance of one phase of matrimonial relations by allowing an action by the husband against a paramour, known as an action for criminal conversation. In such an action a husband could recover damages estimated according to the loss he was supposed to have sustained by the seduction and loss of his wife, the punishment of the seducer not being altogether excluded from consideration. Although this action was not unfrequently (and indeed, for the purposes of a divorce, necessarily) brought, it was one which naturally was regarded with disfavour.

Effect of the Reformation

Great as was the indirect effect of the Reformation upon the law of divorce in England, the direct effect was small. It might, indeed, have been supposed that the disappearance of the sacramental idea of marriage entertained by the Roman Church would have ushered in the greater freedom of divorce which had been associated with marriage regarded as a civil contract. And to some extent this was the case. It was for some time supposed that the sentences of divorce pronounced by the ecclesiastical courts acquired the effect of allowing remarriage, and such divorces were in some cases granted. In Lord Northampton’s case in the reign of Edward VI. the delegates pronounced in favour of a second marriage after a divorce a mensa et thoro. It was, however, finally decided in Foljambe’s case, in the 44th year of Elizabeth, that a marriage validly contracted could not be dissolved for any cause. But the growing sense of the right to a complete divorce for adequate cause, when no longer any religious law to the contrary could be validly asserted, in time compelled the discovery of a remedy.

The commission appointed by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. to reform the ecclesiastical law drew up the elaborate report known 339 as the Reformatio Legum, and in this they recommended that divorces a mensa et thoro should be abolished, and in their place complete divorce allowed for the causes of adultery, desertion and cruelty. These proposals, however, never became law. In 1669 a private act of parliament was granted in the case of Lord de Roos, and this was followed by another in the case of the duke of Norfolk in 1692. Such acts were, however, rare until the accession of the House of Hanover, only five acts passing before that period. Afterwards their number considerably increased. Between 1715 and 1775 there were sixty such acts, in the next twenty-five years there were seventy-four, and between 1800 and 1850 there were ninety. In 1829 alone there were seven, and in 1830 nine.

The jurisdiction thus assumed by parliament to grant absolute divorces was exercised with great care. The case was fully investigated before a committee of the House of Lords, and not only was the substance of justice so secured, but the House of Lords further required that application to parliament should be preceded by a successful suit in the ecclesiastical courts resulting in a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, and in the case of a husband being the applicant, a successful action at common law and the recovery of damages against the paramour. In this way, and also, if needful, on its own initiative, the House of Lords provided that there should be no connivance or collusion. Care was also taken that a proper allowance was secured to the wife in cases in which she was not the offending party. This procedure is still pursued in the case of Irish divorces.

It is obvious, however, that the necessity for costly proceedings before the Houses of Parliament imposed great hardship on the mass of the population, and there can be little doubt that this hardship was deeply felt. Repeated proposals were made to parliament with a view to reform of the law, and more than one commission reported on the subject. It is said that the final impetus was given by an address to a prisoner by Mr Justice Maule. The prisoner’s wife had deserted him with her paramour, and he married again during her lifetime. He was indicted for bigamy, and convicted, and Mr Justice Maule sentenced him in the following words:

“Prisoner at the bar: You have been convicted of the offence of bigamy, that is to say, of marrying a woman while you had a wife still alive, though it is true she has deserted you and is living in adultery with another man. You have, therefore, committed a crime against the laws of your country, and you have also acted under a very serious misapprehension of the course which you ought to have pursued. You should have gone to the ecclesiastical court and there obtained against your wife a decree a mensa et thoro. You should then have brought an action in the courts of common law and recovered, as no doubt you would have recovered, damages against your wife’s paramour. Armed with these decrees, you should have approached the legislature and obtained an act of parliament which would have rendered you free and legally competent to marry the person whom you have taken on yourself to marry with no such sanction. It is quite true that these proceedings would have cost you many hundreds of pounds, whereas you probably have not as many pence. But the law knows no distinction between rich and poor. The sentence of the court upon you, therefore, is that you be imprisoned for one day, which period has already been exceeded, as you have been in custody since the commencement of the assizes.”

The grave irony of the learned judge was felt to represent truly a state of things well-nigh intolerable, and a reform in the law of divorce was felt to be inevitable. The hour and the man came in 1857, the man in the person of Sir Richard Bethell (afterwards Lord Westbury), then attorney-general.

The Act of 1857

Probably few measures have been conceived with such consummate skill and knowledge, and few conducted through parliament with such dexterity and determination. For more information, click here.

The Constitution of the Court

The new court, termed “The Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes,” was constituted by the lord chancellor, the chiefs and the senior puisne judges of the three courts of common law, and the judge of the court of probate (which was also established in 1857), but the functions of the court were practically entrusted to the judge of the court of probate, termed the “Judge Ordinary,” who thus in matters of probate and divorce became the representative of the former ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For information on The Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, click here.

Summary Proceedings for Separation

The legislature has sought to extend the relief afforded by the courts in matrimonial causes by a procedure fairly to be considered within the reach of all classes. (1) For more information, click here.

Resources

Notes and References

Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)

History of Divorce