The Press.
London, England, 1853-11-12 00:00:00

THE NEW IRISH BISHOP.

THE Whigs seem to have carried their point in the
nomination of the Reverend HENRY GRIFFIN, Of
Cloufeacle, as successor in the see of Derry to the
late lamented Dr. PossoNay. We have heard but
little of 1)r. GRIFFIN, but we believe that he is a
Church of England man of the Protestant—and not
the Peel-ponyite—school. We confess that we would
have wished for the elevation of a more distinguished
divine. The Dean of St. Patrick's was, we presume,
too decidedly a Conservative for the tastes of the
Coalition Cabinet. The appointment of 14.. KIRWAN,
of Limerick, whose pulpit eloquence is not unworthy
of his famous father, would have been popular to all
parties. Consistency in opinions, however, whether
religious or political, deserves no little approbation
in an age of tergiversation. Dt)eba. GRIFFIN was
well known as a " Liberal" in the days when the
present Prime Minister was supporting Lord CASTLE-
' ItEAMI with as much cordiality as his frigid nature
would permit; and, although a better selection might
have been made, compared with some others of lord
ST. GERMANS. appointments, this last promotion may
be almost joyfully accepted from a t 'Rhino, some of
whom were the active patrons of " Mr. Itincii " and
others the confederates of Mr. KE•siit.

THE LATE Sill CHARLES NAPIER.
1.1, THE ElolToß dol.' "THE mils."
Sir,—While thanking you for inserting my letter,
with ull frietolly feeling. and without any " Napier
love of controversy," 1 beg to point, out some unsus-
tainable portions of your observations.
The exposure of Sir James W. Hogg's sneaking
attempt, through Mr. Daily, to injure Sir C. Napier

65►1

in the House, eannot well hr adduced, a' coming
within the reviewer's notion of "Irving controverwy ;"
but if so, its parallel is to he found in the duke's
despatches. where he published a menacing letter
about Lord Ilollnnd, hir condemning his conduct
towards ltlarslial Ney.
1.011 .ay. " lie who allows his nearest relative to
write in his defence with his cognisance, 1.e., may be
fairly held responsible for the writing itself."
I entirely dissent from this doctrine, 11111t1, strange
as it may appoirs Sir Charles Napier knew nothing
of illy writings, sloe that I was writing, until he read
them in print. !tut, adopting your doctrine, the Duke
of %Vellingtiai is then responsible for the complain.
iii". bitter, passionate speeches in his defence Sande
by Ili. bltidhrr, !MINI in Parliament, during
the Peninsular war.

Su. C. Napier never ilia "appeal to the people
through the press ill behalf of his neither
hove I ever done sob for him : if by claims Ise meant
diiissis for honours sir reword'. Nly only appeals
have been the exposing of slanders, intrigues, unit
vile practices to slishoinsur him WWI ile!iirO
llls claim 4111 history fist' &111 N liN it general Anil
sidieslllllll I line lINIeNII lires%eil, insisted on, Alla
; lint. tin doing, I only place inymelf along
side or those Who ripliiitnon for thei
ilitke, by 11.441111 nm his glorious usstions.
Not-. 7, I WO, W. Artmt, 1,1.

Wt. are happy to part from Sir W. Napier with
that friendly feeling on our side which we an. proud
tai hear 16111 u.hnit 1111 1114. The tlilfen.tice between
us is now reduced to a mailer of opinion. If there
hr ti ',mullet between Sir Charles Napier's letters to
the l'inies newspaper and "a menacing letter to he
found iu the lieSpiteileS," We can 141111 M'
from our point Of view a considerable differenee
tween the speeches of lord Wellesley in Parliatnent
and works aildretated to the world at large ; even if
11,twil Wellington in the one elUle, and Sir Charles
Napier in the other, wen. equally responsible for
their utterance or miblieation.
We ourselves used the word " claims " in the +tense
of merits or desert. 4, tit we should mm4llllll, that no
Napier mould peas a etullll fair honours or rewank
except as a recognition by the public of public ser•
vices. ID the latter Mellse, therefore, we can cor.
&ally agree as to Sir Charles Napier's claim of his.
tinical faint. 'loth as general and statesman.

UNPUBLISHED LETTER OF SIR CHARLES

NAPIFIt.
Wi: have been favoured with the following most elm-
raeterist le letter of the late Sir Charles Napier, which,
as wr►tten in his public capacity, we may publish
will t conm►ent or apology:—
•
kurrueliee, Ist Felintary, 1A44.

"Private James Neary,— I have received your letter
dated Ist January. %nu tell that you give matis-
faetien to your ollh•era, which is just what you might
lo do, and I RIM Very glad to hear it ; lweause 1 have
regard for every one reared at l•astletowo, for I
was reared thee►• myself. However, as I and all be
longing to me have left that part of the country fur
more than twenty ye►trs, I neither know/ ' Mr.
Tom Kelly is,' nor do I knew' yiair father ; lout I
know that I would go far any slay in the year towns+
a l'elluidge man, er any 111N11 from the barony of
Salt, in which (*Abridge stands ; that IA to say, if
such a man behaves himself like a Kiva soldier, and
not like &damned drunken son of a bitch like James
Johnstone, whom on knew very well, if you are a
Castletown man. Now, Mr. James Neary, as I am
suer you are, and must be, n rrooorkably sober sum
am I am myself (or I should not have got eu ao► well
in the world as I lone dime), I say, as you an•
a remarkably sober ►uan, I desire you to take
this letter to your captain, and ask hin► to
show it to your lieutenant colonel ; and to
ask the said lieutenant colonel, with my heat
compliments, to have you in his menu►ry ; and if you
are a remarkably sober maim, mind that, .1 awes N Nary,
if you are a remarkably sober ►uan like I am, and in
all other ways titted to he a lwu•e eorporal, I will be
very nmeh obliged to him to promote you, nor and
hereafter. trot if you are like.limies Johnstone, the"
I sincerely Impe lie will give you admit& quantity or
puni'lrnu•nt, as yeat will, in tlo►t ca-e, well d►serve,
for taking up my time, wind, I unr always ready to
spare for a good soldier, lint hot for a bad one. Now,
you belsarr well, this letter will give you a fair
start in life, and, if y►o► behave well, I hope soon to
hear that you are a cerporid. Mind what you are
about, and lielieve me total your well wisher,
" NArtEn, MAi., (inventor of Seinde,
because I have always been a remark.
ably sober *an.
"Te Private Jameii Neary,
11. Al. loth Regiment ut• Fuca, Ktutsawhie.•'

652

REPORT ON THE LAW Ole• DIVORCE.
Tnr. huportanee of a political question, and its interest,
are two very different things, as every observer of parlia-
mentary proceedings has daily occasion to perceive. Sir
Wood's India Bill at no time drew one-third of the at-
tendance which rewarded the amiable exertions ..f Mr.
Stafford's persecutors. Colonial debates generally full
within the same eategory—usefhl. but dull ; and all do
matron of Snow, except where their lwaring on the patty
'•alley of the moment lends an extraneous and artificial ex•
eitement to their discussion. Hut all them are matters
which, though they bench men's interest« nearly, do not
•1e affect their feelings. It is otherwise withthe subject
of the report before us, which, nevertheless. passed
almost unnoticed, in a sewaiou by no mean« remarkable fur
the keenness with which political warfare has been car-
vied on. _ .

fn Deoernbor, Item, a comntbation watt appointed to in•
coin+ into the laws of Intirriage and divorce—Lords Camp-
bell, lleaut 11111 l t, and Britt-saute, I tr. Imshititcloil, Sir NV.
I'. Wood, Mr. Walpole, and Mr. Itouve►ie, being the V/ mnonk•
'dopers. Their labunrs+ were made public in the course of
the present session, embodied in a long and eleleu►ate re-
port. and accompanied with brief but important evidence.
Thin report, and the 11'611111.4 which it recommends, we
propose• II I +-outsider.
The Mate of the nowriage laws in Protestant countries.
and, indeed, in modern Europe generally, is essentially
imperfect and suutualusta—due imperfection and twoundy
arising out of the want of a definite principle on which
they s-au be• based. Is marriage, in set far as the law takes
cognisance of it, a purely (-nil contract, or is it it religious
ee•r'lllully? 1:0111a11 Littlasslicistst answers, without hesita-
tion, "Thu latter." Mode-u t society inclines to all opposite
decision, but hesitates in its judgment, and shrinks from
disturbing the enactmettlis of former genurations in it point
MO delicate and beo deeply affect lug the relations of private tat-
eiety. From this doubt a state of things has grown up in
which the practice of the law is at vauillilee with its theory,
and custom with tradition. M'e speak, 111111 11111111 Spellk,
Inelligively of the question of divorces is ciacal s. and not of
those legal separations it neeputli et th,,e,), which have not
the effect of dissolving the marriage tie, and in fact leave
the legal rights of the parties where they were before, ex-
cept as regards their personal inn-wow-se. It is the theory
Euglish jurisprudence theft a marriage. eriginally
011 1111 l 11N. legally dissolved by stay judicial process. The
Ecclettiastieal k'ourtm have indeed the power to dissolve one
ul•igiltally invalid, but this is not to 1.1...11k at tie already
existing, but simply to declare it nott-existent. Wlll'l'-
4114' re•least• Cava► the ntswriage contrae•t k sought the n'•
wetly its not in law, but legislation. So far as the judicial
proems is concerted, main hags- remains intlisatoloble under
till einsmistances, even its rights have l,t•e•11 openly

violated by one of the l'lllitniellllll paKia
Thi.4 remtriet' lew•emdv Wont Ilunuut l'atholie time!:.
After the Reformation it was propewil to mum% e it. In
the" Reformado Loom Evelesi:Latiearnm," prepared under

.•
the sanction of Crammer, if not rietnally drawn up by him.
a now code of regulations was suggested, according to
which,
" when the husband or wifi• had committed adultery, a
divorce was tamed, and the ploy Insight mun'y
again. lint it' both were guilty, Plinee both *mist fain wider
the MOM' etllltlt•lnnation, the first marriage nIP4 not to 101.
Abtoittle desertion, pridracte.lll6Wllee, 111011111
enmities, and lasting cruelty, were all adjudged to he
law-
grounds of divorce. Nit reconeiliation was Mettle:l6st
wherever it entild he obtained, and sepanitions from bed
and hoard were entirely abolished. It was, moreover. W.
C4lll lllllleil that adultery should be 111 l by I„,iwtno
imprisonment, or transportation for lit'e : and if the (grot-
tier were the husband he was to return to the wife her for-
time, and add to it shalt' of his own; or if the wife. she
WWI 1.. forfeit her jointure, mill all the advantages n hick
by law, custom. settlement. or promise. S:c., she might
have otherwise derived fnaii her mairiage."
'Elie liberal principles herein laid down were seta iipon
in at least one ease, that of 1.0111 Noithamption 1:1:•1 ).
and probably in many others during the half centitry which
ensued. lint in Ilkll an opposite decision was xllirtned :
and tint only waft the doctrine of indissolubility re.estal..
lisheil, but its rigour 14.esme practically greater than in
roman eatholie tittles: "the various fictions out tie% ices
in the shape of caminical il....trees and alleged pre contr.wts.
which then afforded so many loopholes of escape. having
been each and all put an end to by the reformation."
Of the state of the law from 1601 to itgiti we have

acareely any information. It would seem. however. that
the extreme severity of the preceding generation was not
relaxed; althotnet in the distnrbed times of the t •limmon-
wealth, and (haring the reaction of immorality smell
followed the overthrow of Puritanism, it may very
probably have been set nt nought. The first reeonl of
appliention to Parliament for the purpose of dissolving
marriage on the ground of its previous violation is found
in the ease of Lord /loos kltkitn, which led to a hot