The Press.
London, England, 1856-05-24 00:00:00

chequer Bills held by the Commissioners for the Re-
duction of the National Debt ropresented savings-
banks' money.
The resolutions were ultimately agreed to.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, on Tuesday, moved the
second reading of this bill. By the present bill it
was intended in suits for divorce to do away with the
necessity of going through the present preliminary
proceedings, which were frequently of a revolting
character. It was proposed to establish a tribunal,
called the Court of Divorce, having power to deal
with the facts of the case, and pronounce a sentence
of dissolution of marriage at once. The court would
consist of the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of
the Queen's Bench, or a judge of the courts of West-
minster appointed by him as his deputy, and the
Judge of the Court of Probate and Administration.
This tribunal would take vied voce evidence of the
facts in proof of the allegation of adultery ; it might
summon a jury in the case, or direct an issue to be
tried by a jury, in the same manner as the Court of
Chancery; there world be a right of appeal from its
decisions to the House of Lords. The court would
only take evidence on an allegation of adultery on
the petition of the husband, except in a case of
incestuous adultery on the part of the husband,
when the suit might be promoted by the wife.
Lord LYNDHURST thought the measure insufficient,
Ind that in its present shape it ought not to pass
into a law. The bill itself and the whole question
should be referred to a select committee for inquiry.
The bill would not render the situation of' women
beater. In most cases it would make it much worse.
Women had a right to complain of the present state
of the law, by which, even if separated from the
husband, he could claim all their property and earn-
ings for his own use. The bill gave no remedy for
this great injustice. Nor did it give a woman any
protection in the most odious of all actions,—a suit
for divorce; she was not allowed to appear, or give
evidence, though to her it was a question of life or
death, while to a defendant in such a case it was only
a matter of money. He could not see by what prin-
ciple the new tribunal was to be governed. Three
judges were appointed to inquire into the facts; but
there was still an appeal from their decision to the
House of Lords ; it might confirm the decision, or it
might direct the court to examine new witnesses, or
re-examine the same witnesses as to new facts. This
would be very expensive. A complicated machinery
was constructed for an insufficient purpose. He
denounced the injustice that denied to a wife the
right of proceeding against the husband, except in
the sole and special case of incest; there was a clause
under which a wife might apply for a private act of
Parliament; but the bill allowed the husband a
remedy on comparatively easy terms, and left the law
exactly as it stood for the wife, who without the
means could not possibly apply for or obtain relief.
He quoted a number of authorities (Lord Thurlow,
Johnson, Bishop Cosens, and the present Lord Justice
General of Scotland) to prove that greater facilities
of divorce would not produce the injurious results ap-
prehended, and moved that the bill be referred to a
select committee. _ _

.....
Lord BROUGHAM seconded the motion, and paid a
high compliment to Lord Lyndhurst's able speech.
He conl,urred with Lord Lyndhurst that the measure
',mild rather impair than improve the present state
of the law.

Lord REDESDALE, though opposed to any inter-
ference with what had been the law of England from
the introduction of Christianity, supported the motion
for reference to a committee.
The Earl of ABERDEEN feared, if the bill were sent
to a committee, it would necessitate a continuance of
the system of injustice so long maintained.
The LORD Cuotcxr.t.on consented to refer the bill
to a committee. He should not in committee attempt
to extend the measure.

The motion for referring the bill to a select com-
mittee was then agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW.

Lord IALCHESTER, on Thursday, rose to move a
senec of resolutions respecting the course of neu-
trals n time of war, setting forth that the right
of cat yr lg enemies' goods in neutral vessels had
been us .pted by the most eminent jurists of all
ages a a nrinciple of international law, and an in-
herent rl !ht of every belligerent power, and con•
demUng Lhe article of the convention appended to
the -
treat, of Paris, by which a change had been
effected in the maritime law of England without
previous reference to the Legislature. The declara-
tion laid down four principles ; it was chiefly to the
second of these that he wished to draw the attention
of the house ; it stated that a neutral flag should
henceforth cover an enemy's goods unless they were
contraband of war. This was a surrender of an
important right, which this country had always pos-
sessed; he cited ancient authorities, the argu-
ment against the Prussian Memorial of lin, the
resistance against the Northern Confederacy, and the
orders in council of 1807-0, proving this right to be
a part of international law asserted on those owe-