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

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.