The Press.
London, England, 1858-12-04 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

TILE new Law of Divorce may now be said to have had a fair trial.
An attentive observer of the moral and social progress of the nation may
already see in the working and general effect of the new Act quite enough
to make him question the policy of so sudden and so sweeping a change as
the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. An argument based upon grounds
more of expediency than absolute necessity found favour in the eyes of all
who looked no further than the general question of legal reform ; and
many have enlisted in its cause from an apparent injustice under the old
law, which put the power of obtaining a divorce only in the hands of a
rich man. No doubt it was a hardship that a member of one class of
society alone, by reason of rank and fortune, should have that facility of
separating from an adulterous and unworthy partner which was virtually
denied to another. But then arose the question of how far the easy and
expeditious mode at present resorted to in dissolving the marriage tie
would tend to elevate the moral and social condition of the community at
large. Mr. GLADSTONE, in an eloquent and brilliant speech in the debate
of July, 1857, alluded to the characteristic constancy of the Englishwomen
in the class for which the measure under discussion was principally in-
tended to benefit, and used these words :—" 'With regard to the lower classes
" of society, when they are not, as is the case in London, brought into im-
mediate contact with temptation, I do say with joy and thankfulness
" that the observation of the marriage tie is faithful in the highest degree.
" If that be so, how singular it is that a great and deplorable laxity
" with respect to chastity before marriage should be coupled with extra-
" ordinary strictness in the observance of the marriage vow ? The circum-
" stance requires explanation ; and my explanation, than which, I think, a
" more rational and probable one cannot be found, is, that it is attributable
"to the indissolubility of marriage according to the English law." Fully
impressed as we are with the truth of this assertion, we have watched
with care and attention the alteration which the change of that law has
effected in the general tone of society in this country, and we say without
fear of contradiction that a general opinion pervades nearly all classes that
the marriage tie is no longer an absolute and total union of man and
woman, but that the gulf is passable—that on the merest " tiff" a husband
and wife can mutually arrange to separate, and, if things come to the worst,
they have only to apply to Sir CRESSWELL CRESSWELL for a legal confirma-
tion, and they are free for ever. The tendency which this feeling will
exercise on the morals of the nation is already beginning to show itself.
When once a flippant and irreverent opinion as to the sanctity of the mar-
riage tie settles upon the English nation, we may bid good-bye to our
boastea virtue and our much vaunted habits of domestic propriety. Matri-
mony, if once looked upon as merely the impulse of a moment or a freak
of fancy, will never cease to be the subject of judicial investigation, and
innumerable cases will inevitably appear before the public as disgraceful
and as scandalous in its details as the late trial of " Marchmontv. March-
mont." In this long and disgusting trial a precedent has been established,
the consequence of which may endanger, if not absolutely destroy, the
union of many a married couple who are unfortunately given to
mutual recrimination. It comes simply to this : that a wife
who may have misconducted herself quite as disreputably as
Mrs. MARCHMOST appears to have done, may, by presenting herself
before the Divorce Court, obtain a separation from her husband on the
ground of cruelty, notwithstanding any provocation he may have received,
and for no other cause than using bad language in return for her own. We do
not wish to plunge into the bearings of this unseemly squabble, much less to
take the part of either petitioner or respondent in the suit. All we wish to
do is to draw the attention of our readers to the principle established in the
case, which, if followed out, must inevitably lead to such an increase in the
number of applications of the like nature, as to render it necessary that
some modification should be made before long in the facilities for obtaining
a divorce at present existing under the law. It was never intended by the
Bill to make a provision for weakness and wickedness, or that such a
couple as Mr. and Mrs. MAncumosT should come within the control of the
Court ; but the great and increasing difficulty is, how far to keep this
relieving power within bounds, so, as was said at the time of the passing of
the Bill, " as not to encourage or increase what was only intended to be
" kept in tolerable order."

The letter published in the Times of Thursday last, by Sir FRANCIS
HEAD, is very well worth consideration. He there points out what the
Emperor NAPOLEON has done for France, and what France has done for
the Emperor—i.e., voluntarily abdicated certain rights of which too many
people in this country suppose them to have been forcibly deprived. It
has always seemed to us that the great question to be determined was not
so much what was the character of LOUIS NAPOLEON'S government as
what was the cause of it. Few people in this country believe that des-
potism is the best form of government, or that " the Peace Preservation
Act" is a comfortable law to live under. But when we know that the
removal of the first would be the signal for anarchy, and the removal of
the second the signal for assassination, we submit to them as a hard ne-
cessity. France, in fact, is like a man in a fever, who must be kept quiet
till he gets well. She brought the disease upon herself, and she must not
quarrel with the physician. A little patience, and perhaps the cure may
be completed. We already hear of immense improvements in her com-
merce and industry. Money is unlocked, trade is flourishing, and the
poor are prosperous. The man who has accomplished these results de-
serves more forbearance than is usually accorded him ; and his pardon of