The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

THE DIVORCE BILL.

IliviNo on previous occasions pointed out the
religious and ecclesiastical objections we en-
tertain to the above measure, we propose for
the present to glance at some of its legal in-
consistencies, more especially in connection
with the recent speech of the Attorney-
General.

Lord PALMERSTON, it appears, is determined to
force a Divorce Bill of some kind or other
through the House of Commons during the
present session. He has been compelled
to adopt so many amendments in the
course of the late discussions, and it is
probable that he will be obliged to adopt so
many more, that it is utterly impossible to
form any notion as to the shape which the
Divorce Bill may eventually assume. The
truth is, that in order to make up for the
many promises they have broken, and the
many blunders they have made during the
present session, the Government are deter-
mined to do something in the way of Law
Reform. There is not a farthing of political
capital to be made in any other way. Dis-
gracefully surprised in India, signally humi-
liated at Constantinople, it is upon his domes-
tic legislation that the Premier relies to
sustain the waning confidence of his sup-
porters, with what prospects of success it is
easy to foresee.
Upon two material points in the Divorce
Bill the Government have already been de-
feated. The first point is the establishment
of local tribunals for trying matrimonial ques•
tions and dissolving marriage. The innovation
upon the original plan entirely alters its
character ; and how the necessary details are
to be carried out the Attorney• General has
not thought fit to inform us. The next point
is the recognition of the right of divorce in
the wife in case of the adultery of the hus-
band, committed within the conjugal resi-
dence. Lord JOHN MANNERS carried this
clause without a division, but after a very long
and somewhat acrimonious debate, in which
Sir RICHARD BETHELL employed an argument
of a very remarkable kind. He admitted the
abstract justice of Lord JOHN'S pro-
posal, but he opposed it on the ground that it
raised a question which the Government wero
particularly anxious to avoid. The object of
the Bill, he said, was merely to embody the
law of divorce which at present existed, and
not to amend it ; and he further freely ad
mitted that the present state of the law, which
absolutely denies the right of divorce to the
weaker sex, was " opprobrious and wicked."
A more astounding line of argument was
surely never addressed to a deliberative
assembly than this. A measure is brought
forward professing to be au improvement in
the law iu a department of the highest impor-
tance, and yet we are told, as a reason why we
should adopt it, that it is in reality no im-
provement at all, and that it in fact will leave
the law just as bad as it was before. The
merciless exposure of the Attorney-General's
logic by Mr. GLADSTONE was to the last degree
effective.

But we do not find fault with Sir RICHARD
BETIIKLL'S reasoning alone. It is not true, as
he is reported to have stated, that the object
of the Bill now before the House "is merely
" to embody the law of divorce which at pre-
" sent exists." It proposed, even in its original
form, some sweeping alterations in the law.
It proposed to give the wife certain rights
which are now denied to her. It contained
clauses giving her a right to a divorce in cer-
tain cases ; and it contained others giving her
absolute control over her property in the event
of the desertion or other gross misconduct of
her husband. How, under these circum-
stances, the Attorney-General could assert
that the Bill was a mere embodiment of the
present law we cannot comprehend. It does
in reality contain many important alterations
in the law, but we entirely agree with him
that it will still deserve the epithets of
" opprobrious and wicked " should the Bill
pass in its present confused and unintelligible
shape.
We have from the first condemned that pro-
vision in the Bill which draws a distinction

788

between the two sexes as to the right of
divorce. We cordially approve, therefore,
of the amendment of Lord JOHN MANNERS,
which is a step in the proper direction. But
supposing the Bill is carried as it now stands,
a hundred perplexing questions will arise as to
the amount of cruelty and the nature of the
desertion which will entitle a woman to a
divorce. There is no mode of obviating these
difficulties, if we allow divorce at all, except
by placing the sexes on a footing of equality.