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

THE PRESS.

debate, and was opposed by a majority of the bishops, who
saw in the proposed innovation a dangerous surrender of
ceclesimitical privileges. It was granted nevertheless ; a►id
the precedent was confirmed, under circun►stances slightly
different, in the cases of Lady Macclesfield mid tho I►uke

of Norfolk.
A new era had now commenced. " The right to obtain
a divorce• of ciiirsia,- say the eommissioners,
was definitively established. It was established, how.
ever. in the rudest and most incomenient manner: for
the proceeding WWI a judicial one by a legislative proceas,
111141 it hail all the Meow enienees which urcessarily result
trout the dismission of such a question in a mixed and
popular waleuably. At first only a few divorce hill. were
passed—tot more than live were earried through Parliament
before the accession of the house of Hanover. From
17 I:1 to 177.) their tun►ber was sixty ; that is to say, they
averaged about laic a year. From 1775 to 17/40 they had
increased to seventy-four : that is to say, upon an average,
to about three a year; and from 1000 to lit•gi they
unwanted to 110. two of these, via.. Lady NI acelestield's
and the !take of Norfolk's cases, were without any sentence
ecclesiastical: and several were without any previous
verdict at law ; for no *tending ordem of either Howie of
Parliament required the institution of tl►ese parliamentary
proceedings until the )ear I;tei
This tsuild not last ; and Lord Loughborough haul the
credit of giving something like consistency and tone to
the irregular proeoltire of the Lords. Ily his resolutions
a previous trial before the Ecclesiastical Courts was ten-
dere(' necessary; and the legislative pact became thus the
eonsequence and consummation of a judicial decision.
lint what is thus gained in regularity is lost iu convenience.
It ',venni absurd," say the commissioners, " that a case
which has already bt•t•t proved thm•eo times," i.e., before a
jury, before the Ecelesituitical Co►ut, and before one House
of Parliament, " h Id be proved again." Yet this the
law requires ; and the result is, an expense, in ordinary
eases, of from :Vs It. to 1,1)001., possibly more. It follows,
necessau•ily, that the relief which is quasi•judieially granted,
not as a favour, but a right, to the wealthy suitor, is abso-
lutely denied to the immr.
Having traced the history of the marliage laws front
early to present times. the eommissioners proceed to Mill-
Cate the points in which they appear to require
mint. And here ft fillt44fitott is opeltrql, which► ilk its prac-
tical interest. in the consequences which it invobes, and
iu the complexity of its component parts, is exceeded by
none in the whole range of legislatien. Four different
opinions have been held by legislators respecting the con•
ditions on which the mintage tie• may be dissolved.
I 1.1 " That it shall be wholly intlissoluble.'"l'his,
we have seen, is the theory of the English law, though
the practice has for nearly three cent►►ries been contrary.

thereto.
" That it shall Is' dissoluble on the ground of
adultery only." This i, the practice of England and of
some foreign countries.
t 3.) "'That it at be dissoluble for other valid causes,
such as cruelty, desertion, and the like ; the validity of
the COMM) to be decided by some competent tribunal. So
far ertiumer and the early English reformers were pre.
pared to go; and such appears to have been at one tint
WWI-1000) the nib., although it would be difficult to say
how far Its legality was recognised either by the Govern-
ment or by the community.
(4.) " That it shall be dissoluble, like any other partner-
ship, at the sill of the contracting parties " Of this ex-
treme relaxation only two preetAllitg exist, that of the
Comm empire in its decline, and that of France during
the progress of the first revolution. In some of the
Alllo'lolll States then. is an approximation to it, lint law
has here outrun the wishes of the people, and the doubtfill
privilege is rarely exercised.
The conmiksisnwrm, in our judgment wisely, avoid all
discussion of the last and first of these alternatives, in
which praetice and the state of opinion fully justify them.
Few protons will contend that an union which, by the
crime of one of the parties, has ceased to exist, shall be
maintained. on theoretical grounds, to the prohibition
of the innocent party from contracting new ties. Few.
again. think it possible or desirable, at least in the
present condition of society, that the solemnity of a life-
long enga3ement should be replaced by an arbitrary and
vague agreement. terminable at any moment by caprice.
satiety, or incompatibility of temper. There remains,
then, only the question whether cruelty, gross and con-
tinued, or wilful desertion. long persevered in, shall be
held to justify dissolution of contract and remaniage?
Much, perhaps, might be urged in favour of snch a view :
but the one unanswerable argument against it t apart from
the general inexpetlicney of relaxing a bond held sacred in
all eonntritsl arises out of the inducement that would be
held out to the petTetnition of such offences by making
them the means Land the sole means) of escape from a
detested couneetion. No mail shall take advantage of
his own wrong " is a in common sense es
well in law ; but it is manift stly where a doll,

SATURDAY,

able object is rendered legally obtainable by a breach of
law. On this account mainly, notwithstanding the high
adverse authorities already cited, we think the commis.
slum's; right in expressing their opinion " that divorces
4 rine,du should not be extended beyond case', of adultery:*
The most important reform which they propose. indeed
the only one which involves any material departure from
existinq anw►genlelds, is the constitution of a new
tribunal, authorised to try all questions of divorce. without
the preliminary ceremonies of a verdict at law and an
ecclesiastical sentence. This tribunal to consist of a Vice.
Chancellor, a Common Law Judge. and a Judge of th.•
Ecclesiastical Courts. Evident.• to be orally d.•livered,
and the rules of evidence the saute with those which pre►ail
in the Temporal Courts. No appeal to be allowed, except
to the House of Lords. Of this proposal it is enough to
say, that it extends to the poor that justice which has
hitherto been limited to the rioh : that it simply provides
an improved machinery for carrying out that which is
avowedly the object of the present law ; that it infringes
on uo principle, and violates no scruple. A change more
beneticial, or• more simple, could not have been suggested.