The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

172 property of any kind comes to the wife during such a separation, it is to be regarded as her own ; and if she dies intestate before her hus band, it is to go, not to him, but to her imme diate heirs. Lastly, she is to be allowed to zue and to bo sued in courts of justice in her own name ; so that, in effect, a mere private agreement between husband and wife, without any cause assigned, and without the interven tion of any other party whatever, will enable them at any moment to cast aside the obliga tions of the marriage tie, an 3 to live in the world as single persons. What is to become of the children, if there happen to be any, in such cases we are not informed. Upon this important point the Bill is silent. We are not surprised, therefore, that on the evening of the introduction of the Chancellor's bills Lord CAMPBELL should have expressed his alarm at the proposal to which we have referred. If we do not share his Lordship's fears, it is because we feel convinced that a measure so destruc tive of public morality, and so opposed to the just prejudices of the country, cannot receive the sanction of the Legislature. The court which Lord CRANWORTII would create would also have power iu certain cases to exercise that privilege which is now re served for Parliament—namely, that of dissolv ing the marriage tie and enabling the parties to marry again. There cannot be a doubt that any properly constituted court of divorce ought to have this power. Lord CRANWORTH would allow the husband, as Parliament allows him now, to annul the marriage on proof of the adultery of the wife. But he would only grant divorces a rifled°, at the suit of the latter, in cases of infidelity, aggravated by cruelty or desertion on the part of the husband. We are aware that it has invariably been the prac tice of Parliament to distinguish between the rights of the sexes in this important matter. During tile last two hundred and sixty years, during which the present practice of Parlia mentary divorces has existed, there have, we believe, been only four instances in which 'livorces have been obtained by women, and these were all cases of extraordinary aggrava. Lion on the part of the husbands. But it may be doubted whether this distinction has been maintained upon any sound principle. Lord ELDON, in general so distrustful of inno vation in any shape, expressed, in a celebrated case, a strong opinion as to the injustice of the rule. He stated broadly that "he saw no " reason why a woman was not as much en " titled to sue for a divorce as a man." But, without discussing this, nice point, we may observe that the grounds upon which the wife is to be entitled to sue are not defined with sufficient precision, and that this uncertainty is likely to lead to many perplexing questions should the divorce clauses of the bill be passed in their present shape. There is still another objection to Lord CRANWORTII'S scheme, and it, is one of great importance. It contains no reference, direct or indirect, to the action of crim. con., which the public voice has so long and so unani mously condemned. Should Lord CRAN WORTH'S bill pass, it is true that it would be no longer necessary for a husband to obtain the verdict of a jury against his wife's pura mow•. He might resort to the court of divorce at once, without publicly claiming, as he now must do, the price of his dishonour. But there is nothing to prevent him, should he feel so disposed, to sue for damages against the adulterer in one court, while he sues for a divorce against his wife in another. Whether it, is Lord CRANWORTII'S intention that both or either of these remedies should be open to the injured husband we are not aware. But he may rest assured that no plan for reforming the law of divorce will give satisfaction to the public which does not provide for the aboli tion of this scandalous form of action. THE CHINA BLUE-BOOK. THE interest excited by the forthcoming motion of Lord DERBY on Tuesday next will, we hope, render some observations concerning the re cent outbreak of hostilities with this Power acceptable to our readers. The nature of it is nut such as to alter our previous opinion of its precipitancy and impolicy. T HE PRESS. With regard to the lorcha herself, there are primarily four points to be considered. First, the nature of the register under which she claimed British protection; secondly, how far the ignorance that this register had expired may be held to nullify the defence of the Chinese, on the plea that she was no longer a British vessel ; thirdly, the matter of fact whether or no the British flag was actually flying at the time she was boarded by the Chinese authorities ; and, fourthly, whether the fact that a Chinese culprit was secreted on board did not exclude her from the provisions of the treaty, even granting that she was in every other respect entitled to the benefit of it It is not to be supposed that embarrassments of this complicated character, and arising in our dealings with a people by whom our in tentions are in all probability but half under stood, and whose character we, in turn, only half understanl, should admit of any decisive opinion being at once formed upon them. The case must be carefully argued in Parliament, and thoroughly winnowed by the various organs of public opinion, before we can hope to arrive at the precise truth. Local experience must be brought into court, and the customs of the Chinese ports be fully expounded, before we can be entirely satisfied. But in the meantime there is no reason why we should not lay before our readers such lights upon the subject as the lately-published Blue book appears to afford us. Now, as regards this same register of which so much has been heard, it really seems doubtful how far it formed a legitimate title to British protection. The Imperial Commis sioner says distinctly in one of his despatches that this register did not make the Arrow a British vessel ; and he complained over and over again of the practice of selling British registers to native vessels as the source of perpetual confusion and misunderstanding, which he would hardly have done had it been a long and mutually recognised system. If we turn to the article in the treaty which is relied upon as the justification of this usage we find as follows :—" Every British schooner, " cutter, lorcha, &c., shall have a sailinif letter, "or register, in Chinese and English, " under the seal and signature of the " chief superintendent of trade, describing " her appearance, burthen, &c." But this does not say that such sailing letter or regis ter is sufficient to make the schooner, cutter, or lorcha, a British one. It would seem to mean that a vessel, being British, owned and navigated by Chinese, must possess some such testimony to her character. Not that any vessel whatever could invest herself with the character of a British vessel by simply purchasing a register. Such indeed is alleged to be the law by Mr. PARKES in the notification which he put lished to the inhabitants of Canton, where he says that " at Hong Kong, " being a British colony, it is competent for the " owner of any vessel of any country, when he " shall have obtained the requisite security, to " make application through the proper official " channels to the supreme authority for a colo " nial register. Under this the vessel hoists a " British ensign, and the register once issued, " she is regarded in all respects as a British " vessel, while those on board her become alike " responsible to British control, and entitled "to British protection." But these conditions were communicated to the Chinese authori ties only " some months " before the outbreak occurred, and it seems rather hard to consider them as absolutely bound by a regulation which originated exclusively with ourselves, which they had barely had time to consider, and which on the first opportunity they have pointedly and repeatedly condemned. How far, moreover, this Colonial Ordinance could have had the force of law without the sanction of Parliament is a point that still remains to be discussed, and will, we trust, on Tuesday next receive due investigation. The second of the four points we have above indicated becomes practically merged in the third. How far, if Brown kicks Jones in mistake for Robinson, supposing Robinson to have in sulted him, whereas in reality it turns out that Jones was the man, tho aforesaid Brown can SATURDAY, be said to have committed an injustice, is a point of casuistry which AQUINAS or ALBEirrus MAGNus would have loved to tackle, but which, happily for ourselves, we can hero afford to pretermit. It is useless to inquire whether the Chinese knew that the register had expired till we know whether they were aware that the Arrow was a foreign vessel. They most distinctly deny that they did know this. Their denial is based upon two grounds, upon one of which there is no dispute whatever, while upon the other the weight of evidence is, to say the least, evenly balanced. They state that upon boarding the vessel they found no foreigners there ; and it is admitted that the master, KENNEDY, the only Englishman connected with her, was absent at the time. They allege, moreover, most positively that no flag was flying at the moment she was boarded ; and to show the probability of this being the case, they say that it is the invariable custom of such vessels to haul down their colours when they come to anchor in the harbour, and not to hoist them again till they put out to sea. This is a statement of custom which is nowhere contradicted by our own officials. When we add that it was well known to every body that the Arrow had been built by a Chinese, was owned by a Chinese, and was engaged in the Chinese coast trade, we shall hardly think the " gentry and scholars of Canton " went too far in describing the mis take, supposing it to be one, as "a slight matter," not justifyinglthe violent consequences with which it was visited. It has yet to he considered how far the master of the Arrow, THOMAS KENNEDY, was cognisant of the ch arac ter of LE-MING-TAE, whom he had engaged in his service. This man was a noted pirate ; and the fact of his being received on board a British vessel might have seemed to the Chinese very like an infraction of that same article which Lord CLARENDON accuses them of violating themselves. A Chinese criminal taking refuge on board a British man-of-war might no doubt remain there a long time without his eharactzr being suspected ; but this could hardly be the case on board a vessel manned entirely by Chinese, and engaged in a trade which necessarily brought the master into contact with that class of natives from whom he would be most likely to hear the truth. Such is a summary of the case which the Chinese consider they have against us. But let us grant for argument's sake that every one of these pleas is worthless ; let us suppose that the case is exactly as the Government agents have represented it—that the. register was in force, and was a legitimate title to protection— that our colours were flying, and were delibe rately and maliciously hauled down ;—we con fidently appeal to the good sense and humanity of the Bfitish people to say whether these were grounds for bombarding a peaceable town belonging to a friendly Power? What more could have been done had British property been confiscated or destroyed, or British sub jects openly murdered in the noon day? But here was no danger either to the one or to the other. No British lives were in jeopardy, no valuable interests were at stake which de manded instant and violent interference. The difficulty was peculiarly one of that character which required calm investigation, and which the delay of a few months could not have aggravated. But by the hasty and passionate conduct of British officials, not only has the national character for patience and justice been tarnished, but a settlement of those controverted points which have since been raised rendered more remote than ever. For a satisfactory settlement is remote exactly in proportion to the violence or the decadence of the Chinese prejudices against us. But the dangerous character of the prece dent thereby afforded to our various colonial officials, whether military or civil, is a feature in the case even more to be deplored than its immediate and obvious evils. If governors and admirals are to be allowed to take the law into their own hands upon every petty provo cation, and plunge us into hostilities with friendly and peaceable nations at their own discretion, there is every reason to apprehend that we shall be in a normal state of skirmish all over the globe. For every soldier, sailor, or civilian will deem it a point of honour not to