The Divorces in England. A Brief History of the Secularization of the Marriage
Keywords:
divorce, England, jurisdiction, marriage, equalityAbstract
From the times of William the Conqueror to 1858, jurisdiction in all marriage matters belonged to the ecclesiastical courts. The courts decided the cases applying the canon law. Marriage, as an institution of the canon law, was also the sacred sacrament. As a consequence, it was treated as an indissoluble union, lasting until the death of one spouse. Although it seemed that the idea of indissolubility of marriage was widely accepted, actions taken by people from various social layers were in contradiction to it. Since 1858 to the third decade of XX c. the English law of divorce was largely changed. This changes were accompanied by the transformation in social consciousness, that is why marriage has never been seen as before.
References
An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England, 20 & 21 Vic., c. 85 (1857) (Eng.).
Sprawa Midland Bank Trustee Co. Ltd. v. Green (No 3), [1982] Ch. 529, [1981] 3 All. E.R. 744, CA.
American and English Divorce Laws, „Western Reserve Law Journal” 1900–1901, vol. 6.
Barratt J. A., The English Divorce Reports from an American Standpoint, „American Law Review” 1914, vol. 48.
Blackstone W., Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, Oxford 1770.
Boose W. R. III, Hayskar S.G., A Comparative Approach: The Divergent Paths of English and American Divorce Reform – To Take the Step from Fault to Breakdown?, „Florida Law Review” 1969–1970, vol. 22.
Bromley P.M., Lowe N.V., Family Law, London–Dublin–Edinburgh.
Coudert F.R. Jr., Marriage and Divorce Laws in Europe, A Study of Comparative Legislation, New York 1893.
de Montmorency J.E.G., Divorce law in England, „University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1926–1927, vol. 75.
DeForest Leach E., English Divorce Reform, „Green Bag” 1913, vol. 25.
Foster H.H. Jr., Divorce The Public Concern and the Private Interest, „Western Ontario Law Review” 1968, vol. 7.
Foster H.H. Jr., Common Law Divorce, „Minnesota Law Review” 1961–1962, vol. 46.
Holmes A. S., The Double Standard in the English Divorce Laws. 1857–1923, „Law & Social Inquiry” 1999, vol. 20.
Hydev. Hyde and Woodmansee (1886) L. R. 1 P. & D. 130, 133.
Jenks E., The Book of English Law, Boston–New York 1929.
Maclean M., From Advocacy to Management in Divorce: A Women’s Issue?, „Cardozo Women’s Law Journal” 1995, vol. 2.
Marriage and Divorce Laws of the World, ed. E. Ringrose, London–New York–Paris 1911.
McCurdy W.E., Insanity as a Ground for Annulment or Divorce in English and American Law, „Virginia Law Review” 1942–1943, vol. 29.
Probert R., The Double Standard of Morality in the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, „Anglo-American Law Review” 1999, vol. 28.
Scarman L.G., Family Law and Law Reform 14,Public Lecture delivered in the University of Bristol, March 18, 1966, [w:] H.H. Foster Jr., Divorce The Public Concern and the Private Interest, „Western Ontario Law Review” 1968, vol. 7.
Shears P., Stephenson G., James’ Introduction to English Law, London–Dublin–Edinburgh 1996.
Wolfram S., Divorce in England 1700–1857, „Oxford Journal of Legal Studies” 1985, vol. 5.
Wright D.C., Untying the Knot: An Analysis of the English Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Court Records, 1858–1866, „University of Richmond Law Review” 2003–2004, vol. 38.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/numact/1902/ukpga19020028en.pdf (1.02.2013).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/10-l1/81/contents/enacted (1.02.2013).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/25-26/30/contents (1.02.2013).
Norton R., The Trial of Mervyn Touchet, Earl of Castlehaven, 1631,Gay History and Literature. Updated 8 August 2009, http://rictornorton.co.uk/touchet.htm (3.12.2013).
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/manners-john-1638-1711 (3.12.2013).
