The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-24 00:00:00

MAY 24, 1856. chequer Bills held by the Commissioners for the Re duction of the National Debt ropresented savings banks' money. The resolutions were ultimately agreed to. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. The Loan CHANCELLOR, on Tuesday, moved the second reading of this bill. By the present bill it was intended in suits for divorce to do away with the necessity of going through the present preliminary proceedings, which were frequently of a revolting character. It was proposed to establish a tribunal, called the Court of Divorce, having power to deal with the facts of the case, and pronounce a sentence of dissolution of marriage at once. The court would consist of the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, or a judge of the courts of West minster appointed by him as his deputy, and the Judge of the Court of Probate and Administration. This tribunal would take vied voce evidence of the facts in proof of the allegation of adultery ; it might summon a jury in the case, or direct an issue to be tried by a jury, in the same manner as the Court of Chancery; there world be a right of appeal from its decisions to the House of Lords. The court would only take evidence on an allegation of adultery on the petition of the husband, except in a case of incestuous adultery on the part of the husband, when the suit might be promoted by the wife. Lord LYNDHURST thought the measure insufficient, Ind that in its present shape it ought not to pass into a law. The bill itself and the whole question should be referred to a select committee for inquiry. The bill would not render the situation of' women beater. In most cases it would make it much worse. Women had a right to complain of the present state of the law, by which, even if separated from the husband, he could claim all their property and earn ings for his own use. The bill gave no remedy for this great injustice. Nor did it give a woman any protection in the most odious of all actions,—a suit for divorce; she was not allowed to appear, or give evidence, though to her it was a question of life or death, while to a defendant in such a case it was only a matter of money. He could not see by what prin ciple the new tribunal was to be governed. Three judges were appointed to inquire into the facts; but there was still an appeal from their decision to the House of Lords ; it might confirm the decision, or it might direct the court to examine new witnesses, or re-examine the same witnesses as to new facts. This would be very expensive. A complicated machinery was constructed for an insufficient purpose. He denounced the injustice that denied to a wife the right of proceeding against the husband, except in the sole and special case of incest; there was a clause under which a wife might apply for a private act of Parliament; but the bill allowed the husband a remedy on comparatively easy terms, and left the law exactly as it stood for the wife, who without the means could not possibly apply for or obtain relief. He quoted a number of authorities (Lord Thurlow, Johnson, Bishop Cosens, and the present Lord Justice General of Scotland) to prove that greater facilities of divorce would not produce the injurious results ap prehended, and moved that the bill be referred to a select committee. _ _ ..... Lord BROUGHAM seconded the motion, and paid a high compliment to Lord Lyndhurst's able speech. He conl,urred with Lord Lyndhurst that the measure ' , mild rather impair than improve the present state of the law. Lord REDESDALE, though opposed to any inter ference with what had been the law of England from the introduction of Christianity, supported the motion for reference to a committee. The Earl of ABERDEEN feared, if the bill were sent to a committee, it would necessitate a continuance of the system of injustice so long maintained. The LORD Cuotcxr.t.on consented to refer the bill to a committee. He should not in committee attempt to extend the measure. The motion for referring the bill to a select com mittee was then agreed to. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW. Lord IALCHESTER, on Thursday, rose to move a senec of resolutions respecting the course of neu trals n time of war, setting forth that the right of cat yr lg enemies' goods in neutral vessels had been us .pted by the most eminent jurists of all ages a a nrinciple of international law, and an in herent rl !ht of every belligerent power, and con• demUng Lhe article of the convention appended to the - treat, of Paris, by which a change had been effected in the maritime law of England without previous reference to th e Legislature. The declara tion laid down four principles ; it was chiefly to the second of these that he wished to draw the attention of the house ; it stated that a neutral flag should henceforth cover an enemy's goods unless they were contraband of war. This was a surrender of an important right, which this country had always pos sessed; he cited ancient authorities, the argu ment against the Pru s sian Memorial of lin, the resistance against the Northern Confederacy, and the orders in council of 1807-0, proving this right to be a part of international law asserted on those owe- THE PRESS. sions by the English Government. It had now been abandoned; and the question was whether a Minister could so sign away a portion of the law of the land, and what was the value of this particular document so signed. In conclusion, the noble lord urged the questionable manner in which this change was effected without the sanction of any of the constitu tional authorities of the kingdom. The Earl of CLARENDON said the question was not one of law but of policy. The right was one the ex• ercise of which had involved this country in very serious disputes, and its abandonment had become almost a matter of necessity, in consequence of the alliances England had contracted with nations who viewed the principle with dislike. In concluding the convention, the plenipotentiaries had acted on the great precedent of the convention by which the slave trade was denounced and suppressed. Had they confined themselves strictly to those matters which affected Russia, they would have lost a great oppor tunity of settling many important questions ; nothing would have been said of the affairs of Italy, nor of the principle of mediation, by the discussion of which he believed a new obstacle had been placed in the way of war. England had abandoned with signal success many exclusive rights once thought essential to her greatness ; she had abandoned the system of protection and privileges for her mercantile marine ; and by abolishing the practice of privateering she hail acted on sound policy, and done much to reduce the miseries and barbarities of a war. The Earl of C kIINARVON supported the resolution. He did not see that abolishing privateering had anything to do with concession to neutrals. Lord Clarendon had not attempted to answer the question what was the value of this declaration of maritime law' In any future war, should we have to incorporate it into orders in council, or obtain for it the sanction of Parliament. The question was not one as to rights of neutrality, but as to the protection of enemies' pro perty, and the principle involved was simply one of self-preservation and legitimate self-defence. We debarred the neutral only from those advantages that would operate to our own detriment. Chatham, Pitt, and even Fox, the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, were all opposed to the policy that a "neutral flag covers an enemy's goods." He was not very sanguine as to any reciprocal advantage which this country might obtain as a neutral power, for since the revolution of 17AR there had scarcely been a great war in Europe in which England had not borne a share. As to the manner in which the convention had been concluded, he thought it showed a want of candour, fairnegs, and straight. forward dealing in not giving Parliament some hid• mation of the great revolution contemplated. Lord HARROWBY complimented Lord Carnarvon on the ability of his speech; but he thought there was no just ground of censure against the Government. The Earl of HARDWICKE thought the effect of this article of the convention would prove disastrous hereafter. He regretted that conditions so deroga tory to the honour of England should have been ac cepted at Paris under French influence ; but, consi dering the Ministry the country had, he was not surprised. The Earl of ALBEMARLE thought it an act of down right piracy to seize an enemy's goods on board neu tral vessels. The recognition of the principle that neutral flags constituted neutral cargoes he regarded as an important step in the progress of civilisation. The Duke of ARGYLL thought England had only given up a right she never could fully exercise. He defended the conduct of the Government, maintained the right of the Crown to conclude any treaties with out the sanction of Parliament, and asserted that every power to carry on future war effectually had been retained. The Earl of DERBY thought that the Duke of Argyll. who generally addressed the house with a considerable degree of confidence in his own opinions, had just spoken with rather more than his usual share of that great parliamentary virtue, but with rather less than his nsual success. Now he (the Earl of Derby) did not deny the power of the Crown to conclude any treaty without the sanction of Par liament, but he wished to know what this declaration signed by Lord Clarendon really was. Was it an authoritative exposition of the law—not of that which should be the law' He drew a distinction be tween a treaty settling the course of action between two nations and an act placing the Government in the position of an exponent of the international law of Europe. Such an act might be within the prero gative of the Crawn, but it was a gross and flagrant abuse of that prerogative, and, if not illegal, cer tainly anything but constitutional. The noble earl was proceeding with his argument relative to the question of international law, and alluding to an expression of contempt for Grotins used by Lord Clarendon, when The Duke of ARGYLL, with much warmth, cried out: I never said anything of the kind. (Loud laughter-) The Earl of DERBY: I entreat the noble duke to be lieve that I am not always talking of him. (Loud laugh ter.) When I speak of another person it does not follow that it is he who is present to my thoughts. (Continued laughter.) I stated most distinctly that it waa to the noble& earl the Foreign Secretary that I waa alluding. (Hear, hear.) The Earl of Derby then continued to point out that of all the authorities quoted by Lord Clarendon there was not one who did not recognise as a portion of the national law of Europe "that enemy's goods on board neutral ships wire liable to capture." It was a nem° dubitat maxim. Lord Mansfield, Vane!, Pitt, Gren ville, and Canning had strenuously opposed any claim of immunity for a neutral flag : It is now said that if we determine to support this doc trine we should be alone. We have been alone, and yet maintained and upheld the doctrine against a confederacy of opponents. ( Cheers.) Yet this principle of belligerent right has been abandoned by the Government. I know not on what grounds; but this I know, that it has been abandoned without the sanction or consent of the people of this country. ( Hear, hear.) A noble lord has objected to the wording of the motion, because it would condemn the conduct of foreign plenipotentiaries as well as that of our own. Now, we do not presume to condemn the conduct of foreign plenipotentiaries, who may have acted wisely in their generation and rightly for the interests of their coun try. ( Hear, hear.) But what we deal with is the conduct of the English Plenipotentiary in respect to English in• terests. (Hear, hear.) Let the noble earl say what he pleases about the importance of England taking the first and primary position in this work of humanity, I beg to remind him that England did not take the first step, but followed in the wake of France. (Hear, bear.) It was the proposal of the French Plenipotentiary, and I should have liked to see what arguments were used by the noble earl, and what conditions were made for the surrender of this right. In this matter, I repeat, wo followed in the wake of France, to which country the adoption of the new principle is eminently favorable. (Hear, hear.)3 The noble earl then quoted the opinions of Mr. Pitt in 1801, who characterised the intention of the Northern Confederacy to produce a new code of maritime laws, as "a violation of public faith, a viola tion of the rights of England, and imperiously calls upon Englishmen to resist it even to the last shilling and the last drop of blooe, rather than tamely submit to degrading concession or meanly yield the rights of the country to shameful usurpation." Lord Hawkesbury said such pretensions were irre concileable with the true principles of public law, and struck at the foundations and greatness of tl e maritime power of England. Lord Shelburne and Canning held the same opinions, and he (Lord Derby) was willing to class himself with such "bar barians who knew nothing of international law." If this principle were admitted in the case of neutral flags carrying canoes, it must be extended to mer chant shits of every class. As to treaties concluded during this century in which the right of search was not pressed, it was nothing in favour of the present concession, for it was one thing to waive a right, and another to give it up in tots. The question was really most important : Suppose, which God forbid, that a war shonld arise be tween this country and France, what means have you of opposing France, except closing her up hermetically and stopping her commerce? Well, what are you to do? Yon can't blockade the whole coast of France ; but you can practically prevent her from sending out one single bale of merchandise. Your new law permitting French goods to go with impunity on board neutral vessels comes into operation ; you have no blockade. France gives up her whole commercial marine; she makes her vessels into vessels of war ; she has seamen to man them ; and, before your very face, she carries on her whole commerce under the Prussian or American flag. (Cheers.) You are powerless. Your power is gone. Your right arm is cut off. Your only means of defence are abandoned, and abandoned too at the suggestion of France. (Hear.) Was there ever a Ministerso led by the nose? ( Cheers.) Was there ever a Minister who so deliberately waiked into the trap set before his face, and so tamely and gratuitously surrendered the founiation of England's greatness. (Lund cheers.l If I stood alone I would support the resolutions of my noble friend—l would divide the hone upon this question —I would give to every one of your lordships the power of recording your opinion as to the policy, the wisdom, and the safety of these proceedings. But, for my part, I solemnly protest—as derogatory to the country, as incon sistent with its dearest interests, as fraught with danger to its future greatness and power—ay ! and to its future safety—l protest against the abandonment of rigl.ta in volved in that which, with all respect fbr his personal qualities. I cannot but characterise as the miserable Cla rendon-Capitulation of Paris. (The noble lord resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.) Earl GREY remarked that the rights abandoned were beyond England's power to enforce; and no blame, therefore, could be attributed to the pleni• potentiaries. Commercial interests, and the public opinion of nations, were opposed to the retention and enforcement of the rig to contended for in the resolution. Their lordships shortly divided, when there ap peared . For the resolutions (present, 58; proxies, 46) lO2 Against (present, 89; proxies, 68) l5B Majority against the resolutions .... 64 The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, on Tuesday, laid on the table a series of resolution , , which on some future evening he should propose for adoption,