The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

THE NEW DIVORCE BILL.

THE law of divorce in England has long been
a vexed question. It has been condemned as
anomalous and unjust by some of our greatest
writers and jurists, and it has been feebly
defended evon by those who have hitherto
opposed any change. No one, indeed, can
deny that the law as it now stands is attended
with evils of the most serious kind. It has
ever been the boast of English jurisprudence
that it regards all men as equals; and it may
be said that in theory the privilege of divorce
is open to all. Practically, however, unless
the suitor has a thousand pounds in his
pocket, it is idle for him to attempt to obtain
a dissolution of the marriage tie. Divorce in
this country is, in short, an expensive luxury
within the reach of the wealthier classes, but
positively denied to their less fortunate
brethren. There are anomalies, too, in the
mode of procedure which urgently demand
correction. The action for trim. con., which
must be brought before a Parliamentary
divorce can be obtained, is a kind of exhibition
%%hicli every lover of propriety must desire to
see abolished. These evils and their conse-
quences are sufficiently notorious ; but every
remedy hitherto proposed has failed. Let us
see whether the LORD CHANCELLORS scheme
is likely to share the fate of all its prede-
cessors.

Lord CRANWORTH proposes, in the first
place, to establish a new court, which shall
have ample and exclusive jurisdiction in all
matrimonial causes. The judges of this
court are to be the Lord Chancellor, the
three chief judges of the superior courts at
Westminster, and the Dean of Arches; so
that no new appointment would be required.
In disputes between married persons this
court is to grant decrees of divorce a mensa et
toro upon nearly the same principles as those
now observed by the courts of Doctors' Com-
mons. So far there appears to be no serious
objection to the scheme ; but the next provi-
sion of the Bili is so remarkable that. we must
call especial attention to it.
At present the law, as most of our readers
are probably aware, is averse to the separation
of husband and wife. It does not positively
refuse to recognise such separations ; but it
requires, before they have any legal effect, that
trustees shall be appointed to act on behalf of
the wife, and that they shall be parties to any
deed which may be executed enabling her to
live apart from her husband. But this pre-
caution Lord CRANWORTH would wholly set
aside. He would allow married persons, with-
out the intervention of trustees, and without
assigning any reason whatever, to execute a
deed of separation, to be enrolled in the new
courts, which shall enable them to live sepa-
rate, and to be considered as separate persons
for all civil purposes excepting one. Neither
husband nor wife is to be allowed to marry so long
as the other remains alive ; but, with this excep-
tion, both are to te held, upon executing such a
deed, as single in the eye of the law. Their
civil rights and their respective properties are
to be deemed as essentially distinct as they
were before their marriage. If an estate or

172

property of any kind comes to the wife during
such a separation, it is to be regarded as her
own ; and if she dies intestate before her hus-
band, it is to go, not to him, but to her imme-
diate heirs. Lastly, she is to be allowed to
zue and to bo sued in courts of justice in her
own name ; so that, in effect, a mere private
agreement between husband and wife, without
any cause assigned, and without the interven-
tion of any other party whatever, will enable
them at any moment to cast aside the obliga-
tions of the marriage tie, an 3 to live in the
world as single persons. What is to become
of the children, if there happen to be any, in
such cases we are not informed. Upon this
important point the Bill is silent. We are not
surprised, therefore, that on the evening of
the introduction of the Chancellor's bills Lord
CAMPBELL should have expressed his alarm at
the proposal to which we have referred. If we
do not share his Lordship's fears, it is because
we feel convinced that a measure so destruc-
tive of public morality, and so opposed to the
just prejudices of the country, cannot receive
the sanction of the Legislature.
The court which Lord CRANWORTII would
create would also have power iu certain cases
to exercise that privilege which is now re-
served for Parliament—namely, that of dissolv-
ing the marriage tie and enabling the parties
to marry again. There cannot be a doubt
that any properly constituted court of divorce
ought to have this power. Lord CRANWORTH
would allow the husband, as Parliament allows
him now, to annul the marriage on proof of
the adultery of the wife. But he would only
grant divorces a rifled°, at the suit of the latter,
in cases of infidelity, aggravated by cruelty or
desertion on the part of the husband. We
are aware that it has invariably been the prac-
tice of Parliament to distinguish between the
rights of the sexes in this important matter.
During tile last two hundred and sixty years,
during which the present practice of Parlia-
mentary divorces has existed, there have, we
believe, been only four instances in which
'livorces have been obtained by women, and
these were all cases of extraordinary aggrava.
Lion on the part of the husbands. But it
may be doubted whether this distinction has
been maintained upon any sound principle.
Lord ELDON, in general so distrustful of inno-
vation in any shape, expressed, in a celebrated
case, a strong opinion as to the injustice of
the rule. He stated broadly that "he saw no
" reason why a woman was not as much en-
" titled to sue for a divorce as a man." But,
without discussing this, nice point, we may
observe that the grounds upon which the wife
is to be entitled to sue are not defined with
sufficient precision, and that this uncertainty
is likely to lead to many perplexing questions
should the divorce clauses of the bill be
passed in their present shape.
There is still another objection to Lord
CRANWORTII'S scheme, and it, is one of great
importance. It contains no reference, direct
or indirect, to the action of crim. con., which
the public voice has so long and so unani-
mously condemned. Should Lord CRAN-
WORTH'S bill pass, it is true that it would be
no longer necessary for a husband to obtain
the verdict of a jury against his wife's pura-
mow•. He might resort to the court of
divorce at once, without publicly claiming, as
he now must do, the price of his dishonour.
But there is nothing to prevent him, should
he feel so disposed, to sue for damages against
the adulterer in one court, while he sues for
a divorce against his wife in another. Whether
it, is Lord CRANWORTII'S intention that both or
either of these remedies should be open to
the injured husband we are not aware. But
he may rest assured that no plan for reforming
the law of divorce will give satisfaction to the
public which does not provide for the aboli-
tion of this scandalous form of action.

THE CHINA BLUE-BOOK.
THE interest excited by the forthcoming motion
of Lord DERBY on Tuesday next will, we hope,
render some observations concerning the re-
cent outbreak of hostilities with this Power
acceptable to our readers. The nature of it is
nut such as to alter our previous opinion of

its precipitancy and impolicy.