In England, the divorce court is composed of a judge ordinary, the three chiefs in the courts of common law, and three puisne judges. It is provided that either spouse may obtain a divorce on the ground of adultery, but in case the wife is petitioner the adultery must be accompanied by cruelty or desertion. By another act the power to pronounce a decree of divorce, which was at first reposed in the whole court, is given to the judge ordinary sitting alone; hut in this case the decree so pronounced is a decree nisi and cannot become final for at least six months.
After a decree of divorce the offending person is free to marry again, even with the paramour. But it is also enacted that no clergyman shall be compelled to solemnize the marriage of any person who has been divorced. He must, how ever, allow another clergyman, if willing to do so, to perform the marriage. The same general rules as to collusion, condonation, the conduct of the parties, etc., which obtain in the United States are law also in England. In order to guard against fraud by parties conniving to procure a divorce, power is given to the queen's proctor to interpose, in case he has reasonable grounds to suspect collusion or recrimination, in order to oppose a petition for divorce. By these acts parties are also entitled to obtain a Judicial separation on the ground of adultery, cruelty or desertion. Judicial separation is declared to be in place of a separation ea mensa et thoroP A married woman, having obtained decree of judi cial separation, is declared to be in all respects as a °femme sole' in regard to any property that she has or may acquire. Even before ob taining a separation a woman deserted by her husband may obtain from the court a protec tion for any property that she has or may ac quire by her own industry.
In France there has been great opposition to any laxity in the divorce laws, but since the year 1884 French law has recognized three grounds of divorce: (1) Adultery; (2) out rage, or grievous injury; (3) convic tion of an infamous crime. These causes of action are equally available to husband or wife; but it is provided that the wife shall not marry again till after the expiration of 10 months from the date of the dissolution of the pre vious marriage. It is further provided that, in cases where divorce is sought on the ground of outrage, cruelty or grievous injury, immediate divorce shall not be granted, but the parties maybe granted separation for a year, with due provision for the wife's support during that time, at the end of which a final divorce may be granted if they have not been reunited in the meantime. Substantially the same rules as to condonation prevail as in the United States. All the proceedings necessary in such cases are carefully provided for by the code civil, as well as the consequences to the parties personal or proprietary.
In Germany, the question of divorce gave rise to a long contest. The General Prussian Code permitted divorce on the ground of mutual consent and deep-seated aversion, but on ac count of the newly-awakened religious life in the 19th century there was strong opposition; this under Friedrich Wilhelm IV arose to an overwhelming power. Many attempts were made to establish the laws of divorce on other bases, but on account of the personal antago nism of Friedrich Wilhelm IV they remained without result. The demand for the biblical ground of divorce was fulfilled by the state, because the Bible does not offer a precise and comprehensive ground of separation. It was claimed that the Prussian law of divorce was lax and capricious and there was a unanimous demand for a more strenuous law in the inter est of morals. This demand found recognition even in circles which were most opposed to ecclesiastical influence in politics. The oppos ing elements were reconciled by the personal influence of Friederich Wilhelm IV; but .the attempts of the legislature to make a new regu lation of divorce remained without results. At the present time attempts are being made for bringing about a common divorce law for all of Germany. This proposed law rests theoreti cally on very strict principles which find justi fication in the motives. The Austrian code of common law allows to non-Catholic Christians separation from the bonds of matrimony on ac count of adultery, malicious desertion, five years' imprisonment, or on account of danger ous diseases and repeated cruelty of treatment and invincible aversion. .
Among the Jews: The enactment of the Mosaic law was the following: °When a man hath taken a wife, . . . and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand and send her out of his house° (Deut. xxiv, 1). Here, it will be perceived, im purity is the only assigned cause for such di vorce. The woman sent away might marry an other man, but if he, too, divorced her, it was not permitted her first husband to take her again. The word °uncleanness" in the passage now quoted is a free translation: the Hebrew words mean literally °the nakedness of a thing.° The exact import of this expression was sharply contested in the immediately pre-Christian times, the school of Hillel giving it a general meaning, and holding that a man might divorce his wife for the most trivial cause; while that of Shammai considered that the doubtful phrase signified adultery, for which therefore alone a man could put away his wife.