admirable statute book of Norway, a saying which should be one of
universal application in divorce. And this relief must be granted, not
merely as an act of justice to the individual; it is called for equally
in the interests of society.

The moral code of any society ought to meet the needs of its members.
But the needs change as time goes on, and moral codes must then also
change or they become worn-out and useless. That society which is
unwilling to modify its laws to fit new conditions drives its members
into defiance of the law and acts directly as a cause of immorality. It
were well to remember this as we come to question our laws of divorce.
There can be no possible doubt that as the law stands at present it does
not meet the needs of those people who claim its relief; while further,
the most superficial knowledge of the situation proves how harmfully and
immorally the law acts.

II

It is, of course, very much better that marriage should be as permanent
as possible, and any society is obviously justified in bringing any
moral pressure to bear to make people realize the seriousness of the
relationship and the importance of keeping it permanent when possible.
But it is certainly no part of the right or duty of society to use force
to compel people to remain in the marriage relationship, when it becomes
so repugnant to them that the conditions of the marriage cannot be
continued. All that society has the right then to demand is that all the
obligations which have been assumed shall be honorably fulfilled. But a
relationship registered in mistake or under delusion should be subject
to revision, and, with certain safeguards, to dissolution, otherwise the
standard of morality is degraded and marriage itself is brought to
contempt, and can be used, as indeed too often it is, as a cloak of
protection for every kind of immorality.

But it is just here that the religious objector to divorce-reform steps
in. Marriage, he declares, is not only a social institution, it is a
sacrament of the Church, "Those whom God has joined together no man may
put asunder," _therefore divorce must be made as difficult as possible_.
As I have said before, I can respect the view that rejects divorce and
regards the marriage bond as indissoluble, but I can have nothing but
contempt for this attitude of weak and shuffling compromise. Much has
been said on the matter, therefore I say little. I shall not attempt to
urge the causes for whi