Should the divorce laws be made more stringent? Should a divorced person be prohibited from remarrying?

I can assure you, mon ami, he would be a veritable Othello, if there were any scandal, and would infinitely prefer the bolster to the divorce-court.

And now comes to light another divorce case in Chicago.

I do that in camera, like a disgraceful divorce proceeding.

It was written during the crisis which came upon our Irish National party at the time when the hopes of Mr. Parnell's most devoted friends in England as well as in Ireland were that after the result of a recent divorce suit Parnell would resign, for a time at least, the leadership of the party and only seek to return to it when he should have made what reparation was in his power to his own honour and to public feeling.

All the abuses, substantially, in divorce matters come from procedure, from the carelessness of judges and juries, or, most of all, by laws permitting divorce without proper term of residence, without proper notice to the other side, or by collusion, without proper defence, or for no reason but the obvious intention of contracting other marriages.

We, the world, our world of Lichfield, I meanare lax enough as to the divorce question, heaven knows, but we can't pardon immorality when coupled with poverty.

" "I want to see Mr. Tutt, the celebrated divorce lawyer," explained Mr. Higgleby.

Divorce and the American divorce novel, 1858-1937.

Divorce coupons.

He was turning over the divorce idea in his mind.

Ce monde, enveloppé d'une brume éternelle, Était fatal: l'Espoir avait plié son aile; Pas d'unité, divorce et joug; diversité De langue, de raison, de code, de cité; Nul lien; nul faisceau; le progrès solitaire, Comme un serpent coupé, se tordait sur la terre, Sans pouvoir réunir les tronçons de l'effort; L'esclavage, parquant les peuples pour la mort, Les enfermait au fond d'un cirque de frontières

First of all, divorce legislation.

Even divorce news, though contemptible enough, can really in most cases be left to the discretion of grown people; and how far children get hold of such things is a problem for the home and not for the nation.

And here let us bear in mind that the widest possible law would not make divorce obligatory on anyone, while a restricted law, on the contrary, would compel many, marrying, perhaps, under more liberal laws, to remain in uncongenial relations.

While the minister is marrying us, the lawyer can be at work on the divorce papers.

If there has been any more general principles developed in the legislature, it has been a promptly debt paying, and a not promptly debt paying partya non divorce, and a divorce party.

Hence the marriage of convenience is fast becoming common, while in the same ratio the divorce petitions are unfortunately on the increase.

When that time comes there will be no divorce problem.

Many years ago the State Commissioners for Uniformity of Law voted to adhere to the policy of reforming divorce procedure while not attacking the causes.

He had ridiculed the polygamy scheme, but the divorce proposition might be managed.

Court judgments do not indicate the true cause of divorce, nor is the complainant necessarily the innocent party, nor are the numbers of divorces granted, as for instance in Nevada, any fair indication of the normal divorce rate of the people really living in that State.

Of what interest was it that the divorce record was growing longer in New York, that Hinky Dink had been reëlected in Chicago, and that Los Angeles had doubled in population.

It is evident to any careful student of our legislation that we would be rapidly approaching this view but for the conservative influence of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the South, and but for the efforts of most of the churches and the divorce reform societies.

They were not modernists or new theologians but atheists, not Fabians or social reformers but revolutionary socialists armed with bombs, not radicals but republicans, not divorce-law-reformers but "free lovers."