is is not a question of "hard _versus_ easy," but of "right
_versus_ wrong". Moreover, as we are finding out, that which seems
easiest at the moment, often turns out hardest in the long run. It is
no longer contended that re-marriage after a State-divorce is that
universal Elysium which it has always been confidently assumed to be.

There is, too, a positively absurd side to the present conflict between
Church and State. Here is a case in point. Some time ago, a young
girl married a man about whom she knew next to nothing, the man telling
her that marriage was only a temporary affair, and that, if it did not
answer, the State would divorce them. It did not answer. Wrong-doing
ensued, and a divorce was obtained. Then the girl entered into a
State-marriage with another man. But that answered no better. A
divorce was again applied for, but this time was refused. Eventually,
the girl left her State-made husband, and ran away with her real
husband. In other words, she eloped with her own husband. But what is
her position to-day? In the eyes of the State, she is now living with
a man who is not {115} her husband. Her State-husband is still alive,
and can apply, at any moment, for an order for the restitution of
conjugal rights--however unlikely he is to get it. Further, if in the
future she has any children by her real husband (unless she has been
married again to him, after divorce from her State-husband) these
children will be illegitimate. This is the sort of muddle the Divorce
Act has got us into. One course, and only one course, is open to the
Church--to disentangle itself from all question of extending the powers
of the Act on grounds of inequality, or any other real (and sometimes
very real) or fancied hardship, and to consistently fight for the
repeal of the Act. This, it will be said, is _Utopian_. Exactly! It
is the business of the Church to aim at the Utopian. Her whole history
shows that she is safest, as well as most successful, when aiming at
what the world derides.

One question remains: Is not the present Divorce Law "one law for the
rich and another for the poor"? Beyond all question. This is its sole
merit, if merit it can have. It does, at least, partially protect the
poor from sin-made-easy--a condition which money has bought for the
rich. If the State abrogated the Sixth {116} Commandment for the rich,
and made it lawful for a rich man to commit murder, it would at least
be no de