The Press. — London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

of the grants of Parliament, and held respon sible to Parliament for a prompt audit and report upon every public account. Until this is done no confidence can be placed in any system or set of men, be it ever so well arranged on paper, or be they ever so nume rous or able. THE PROBATE AND DIVORCE BILLS. THE attempts which have been made to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts have been so nume rous of recent years that we shall not en• deavour to count them. To what are we to attribute these repeated failures ? Is it to the fault of our legislators, or to the intrinsic difficulty of the subject? We may lay the blame, we believe, partly upon the one, and partly on the other. The subject is one of acknowledged difficulty, and the plans hitherto brought forward have been notoriously ineffi cient. We have simplified the procedure in the common-law courts; we have attacked with success the abuses of chancery, but those of the ecclesiastical tribunals have hitherto defied all attempts at reformation. Lord CRANWORTH, however, does not yet despair. He is determined to refute the now prevalent notion that, in spite of all that has been said and promised, the courts of Doctors' Com mons bear a charmed life. He has reproduced his measure of last session, with some amend ments it is true, but still with the inherent defects which we pointed out when it was first introduced. Let us briefly see what these are. No system has ever been devised so admirably adapted for the elucidation of truth as the institution of trial by jury, accompanied, as it necessarily is, with the examination of witnesses in open court. We do not say that the procedure in the Ecclesiastical Courts tends exactly to the opposite result; but when we look at the lengthy and complex mode of piending which they have adopted, and at their singularly in efficient practice of examining witnesses, not in presence of the judge and counsel and an attentive audience, but by means of written interrogatories to which they have abundance of time to prepare their replies—and which they give, moreover, without the wholesome dread of a personal cross-examination—we cannot but admit that such a system must be attended with abuses of the grossest kind. In order to provide nn effectual remedy for these, it has been suggested by the most com petent authorities that the forms of procedure of the common-law courts should be substi tuted for those now practised at Doctors' Commons. Lord Cakxwoirrii hits ostensibly adopted this suggestion in his new Bill ; at all events he provides that the rules of evidence observed at Westminster shall be observed in the trial of all matters of fact in his proposed new Court of Probate ; and he provides further that any issue of fact may be sent for trial to a common-law court. But while making this concession to his opponents he still proposes to preserve the general system of " procedure and practice " adopted in the Ecclesiastical Courts. It appears to us that these provisions are so inconsistent and con tradictory, that they must effectually neutralise each other. It is an attempt, in short, to combine two systems essentially distinct, and governed by wholly different rules. Lord CRANWORTH has perceived this difficulty, and he therefore proposes to delegate to the judge of the new court power to amalgamate, as he best can, the tedious, expensive, and un-English system of procedure at Doctors Commons, with the simple and expeditious practice of the common law. This is a task which, in our humble opinion, is beyond the reach of any judicial ability to accomplish. Lord CRAN WORTH having conceded thus much, had better have conceded all, and substituted at once the procedure of the common law for that now practised in the Ecclesiastical Courts. As it is, should his Bill be carried, he will erect a hybrid tribunal, which, while it must injure existing interests, will no less surely fail to satisfy the public. There is another point in the Probate and Testamentary Bill deserving of attention. It gives to the proposed new court the must THE PRESS. ample powers for determining the validity of all wills and testamentary writings, but not for deciding disputed points of construction. These latter must, as at present, be referred to other tribunals. Now, in framing a new Testamentary Court, it would surely have been advisable to extend to it the jurisdiction in question, so that it might decide upon all matters arising, as it were, within its own peculiar province. And we are the more sur prised that this additional privilege has not been extended to it, when we find that there is to be an appeal from its decisions direct to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, than which, as at present constituted, there does not exist a more efficient tribunal in the empire. Lord CRANWORTII, it will be recol lected by some of our readers, proposed in his first Bill to allow an appeal first to the Lords Justices, and, finally, to the House of Lords. We pointed out at the time the very strong objections to this scheme, and we are glad to see that it has been abandoned. But with the Privy Council as an immediate court of re view, it appears to us that all testamentary matters, whether relating to the validity or the construction of wills, should be referred to the new Court of Probate. With regard to the Divorce Bill, the present measure contains one glaring defect, which Lord LYNDHURST detected and exposed in a moment. Lord CRANWOETH'S present Bill, like his last, still maintains that invidious distinc tion between the sexes which has so long been an unworthy characteristic of English law. He would still allow divorce to the man, and practically refuse it to the woman. This dis tinction hits been founded and maintained upon false and superficial notions of human nature—namely, that women would abuse the privilege in question, were they placed on the same footing with regard to divorce as the other sex. But the records of other countries —and we may take Scotland as an example— where the right of divorce is given to both sexes alike, show that applications of this nature are made much less frequently by women than by men. And why? Because in nine cases out of ten the former have every thing to lose, and nothing to hope from the severance of the marriage tie. But, upon the assumption that women are not to be trusted, the LORD CHANCELLOR Still refuses,exeept in very rare and aggravated cases, to allow them the privilege of divorce. We do not think that this marked distinction can be supported upon any sound principle. The only reason that can be assigned for it is, that the adultery of the wife is a more serious offence than that of the husband. But we are surely not entitled upon that account to refuse any remedy to the woman except in cases of an isolated and outrageous character. We may observe with regard to this point that Lord ELDON—than whom no man that ever lived was more opposed to rash innovation of every kind—after the experience of a quarter of a century on the woolsack, said in a well-known case, " that " he saw no reason why a woman was not as " much entitled to sue for a divorce as a man ;" and he moved the second reading of a Bill presented at the suit of a lady, which was, however, in accordance with established usage, rejected. We objected to Lord CRANWORTH'S former Divorce Bill on another point, and that was because it left untouched the action for criminal conversation which has so long been the wonder of foreigners, and the reproach of English jurisprudence. He has in his present measure made a faint attempt to remedy this crying evil. But he does not propose to deprive the injured husband of the right of bringing such an action, should he feel dis posed to make a market of his wife's honour; he provides only that the action shall be brought after he has obtained his divorce, and not before, which the law now obliges him to do, hereby however, ignoring the fact that he who is not wealthy enough to procure a divorce will be left without any redress. Should this proposal be carried, it will no doubt prevent many scandalous actions from being brought into court, which are raised merely for the purpose of extorting money. But, we confess, we should like to see this action abolished altogether. We understand that it is the intention of Lord St. SATURDAY, LEONARDS tO move in committee that instead of preserving this doubtful remedy to the injured husband, the seducer of his wife shall be subjected to fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. That such is the law of France most of our readers are probably aware, and it is a question for grave considera tion whether it would not be an improvement upon our present anomalous mode of dealing with the adulterer. Lord CRANWORTH'S Bill contains another new feature, which is likely to lead to serious controversy. He proposes to allow alike the innocent and the guilty who may be divorced to contract a second marriage. The Primate gave notice that he should strenuously oppose this provision, and it is not likely to be adopted without material modification. THE SEI'OY MUTINY IN BENGAL. THE last few mails from India have from time to time brought us intelligence of a curious dispute which had arisen in the Bengal Presidency between the native troops and the authorities. The men were suddenly seized with the notion that the Mink. rifle cartridges newly served out were greased with hog's fat; then, when that point was satisfactorily cleared up, they declared that hog's fat was used in the manufacture of the cartridge paper, and that, therefore, as Brahmins, if they touched the cartridge they were defiled by the impurity. The men refused to do duty. The mutiny first broke out in the 19th Native Regiment, and soon spread to other regiments. The 34th was " in league with the 19th," and the 2nd Grenadiers " sympathised with the con duct of the mutinous regiment." The Government at length resolved upon the disbandment of the 19th. But there were in all some 5,000 troops, including the 19th, in a state approaching mutiny. In order to prevent any fatal consequences, and to crush resistance at once, one entire British regiment, the 84th Foot, and one wing of the 53rd, were marched to Barrackpore. A body of cavalry and twelve guns were also moved up to the cantonments, the whole force being placed under the command of Major-General Hearsey. These measures were completed by the 30th of March; the English at Calcutta waited with some anxiety for the result. Reports were rife of a molt, and a number of interior circumstances tended rather to increase the public feeling. A correspondent writing from Calcutta on the 9th of April gives the following description of the affair:— The colonel commanding at Dumdum received what appeared to be trustworthy intelligence that the 19th were marching on the station to seize the artillery. Dumdum is eight miles from Calcutta. He had only thirty men, but he called them together, prepared for de fence, and ordered all officers' families to quit the station. They obeyed, and at two o'clock at night, some dozen frightened women were besieging the houses of their friends in Calcutta for rest and shelter. The same after noon Lieutenant Baugh, Adjutant of the 34th Native Infantry, was attacked by a drunken or drugged Sepoy at Barrackpore. He was severely wounded, but the guard refused to arrest the assassin, and the man strutted up and down till he was seized by the major-general himself. The transaction looked as if the regiment were resolved to die rather than yield. Shortly after daylight on the morning of the 31st of March the troops were drawn out on the parade at Barrackpore. Up to the last moment it was doubtful whether the men would submit or whether a yell of defiance would compel General Hearsey to open fire : They asked permission to petition. The time, they were told, had passed, and they mast lay down their arms. The preparations cowed the men. The old instinctive terror of the Europeans has not passed away, and they laid down their arms, the native officers actually weeping with grief and rage. No humiliation was offered them, they were allowed to retain their uniforms, and were then escorted by the cavalry to Chinsurah. Thence they are gradually dispersing to their homes. It was believed that this example would have a profound effect. It has certainly confirmed the wavering, but the 34th are more mutinous than ever. The man who attempted to assassinate Lieutenant Baugh was con• demned to death, but, so dangerous was the temper of the men, that General Hearsey could nct venture to trust them, and the sentence was carried out yesterday under the protection of shotted guns and two European regi• ments. I fear the 34th must be disbanded. Meanwhile the native regiment at Dinapore is only kept in check by the presence of her Majesty's 10th. The selected soldiers at Umballa and Sealkote rifle schools complain that they should be outcasts if they use the cartridge, and the commander•in-chief's own escort have excommunicated their comrades in the school for touching them. Almost all the regiments of the line sympathise more or less, but, strange to say, all the Irregulars, all the Sikhs, the Ghoorkas, and all the cavalry, ridicule the movement. The Sikhs in the ranks of the 34th are actually leaving the regiment in utter disgust at its conduct. The fact, if the affair become more serious, is very important. The line now form only part of the army, and without officers are no match for the Irregulars and Sikhs, to say nothing of the Europeans.