The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-30 00:00:00

THE UNITED KINGDOM ALLIANCE.

A MEETING of the members and Mends of the
United Kingdom Alliance " for the total suppression
of the liquor traffic " was held on Tuesday evening at
Exeter-hall. It had been announced that the Hon.
Neal Dow, of Portland, Maine, would address the
meeting, and at the time fixed for the commencement
of the proceedings the large room was filled by an
audience consisting in great part of members of the
gentler sex.
After the usual preliminary proceedings, in which
the Earl of Harrington took part,
The Hon. NEAL Dow, whose rising was the signal
for loud cheers, proceeded at once to discuss the
merits of the temperance movement:—
This question was infinitely more important than all
other political questions. At the last election in this
country much stress was laid upon a saving of 6,0000001.,
which it was said the Government might effect. The sup-
pression of the liquor traffic would save 75,000,0001. per
annum in money, in addition to an equal saving in time;
so that the whole saving would amount to 150,000,0001.
In addition to this the suppression of this traffic would
greatly increase and improve the physical strength of
the nation. And yet the members of Parliament did not
know about it. Unless England put down the beershops,
she could not retain her position in relation to the con-
tinental powers. The grogshops slew 60,000 Englishmen
every year—more than twice as many as fell in the Crimea;
and there were at this day more than 600,000 drunkards,
more than 600,000 starving women, and more than 1,000,000
children growing up in vice and crime on account of the
traffic in intoxicating drinks. With all this against the
amount of this traffic, what benefit were they to set to ita
credit? The man did not live who could mention one
single ite u. Yet it was said that a Maine Law for Eng.
land was impossible, and that the Government would hold
fast by beerahops and ginshops! Unless the beershops
were suppressed in England, America would outstrip her
in the race for national wealth, national honour, and
national power. And why? Because America, which had
fist 3,000,000 dols. and 30,000 men a year by it, would put
down this traffic. The statesmen attempted to resist the
movement, and the people put them down. Let English
statesmen take warning by that example. He predicted
that before long the statesmen of this country would feel
themselves driven to take cognisance of the demand for
the legislative prohibition of the sale of intoxicating drinks.
This was properly a political question. It was said that
the movement involved an interference with the rights of
the subject. It did nothing of the kind, because the
subject had no right to do anything which was inconsistent
with the general good. Sales populi supremo lex. All laws
were founded on that principle, and that principle would
equally justify this prohibition. He had no doubt that a
Maine Law would be passed in England.
With respect to the effect of the law in the State
of Maine the speaker observed :
The Times had said that in Maine this liquor law had been
a failure. What were really the facts? The law had been
repealed in Maine, but that had occurred only in obedience
to the law under which moral progress was effected by
alternate advance and retrogression. A political party
which had for thirty years held power lust it in consequence
of their opposition to this law. At the election of the year
before last that party formed a union with the strait
Whigs, and abolished the Maine Law. They introduced a
license system ; the result was a revival 3f intemperance,
and at the last annual election the people swept the Anti-
Maine Law men from their places. In New Hampshire
and Rhode Island the Democratic party had opposed this
law, and had been in consequence crushed out. In the
constitution of Ohio there was a clause that there should be
no license system in that State. In Michigan the Maine
Liquor Law had been enacted by a popular vote. In Penn.
sylvania the enactment of a similar law had been prevented
by a majority of only 4,000 votes, given by the German
counties, and in Indiana there was an equally strong
feeling in favour of such a measure.

THE SOUTH KENSINGTON NfusEnt, which will be
opened to the public in June, will be under the
following regulations :—The collections of objects
relating to education, architecture, and trade, of
pictures, sculpture, ornamental art, and models of
patented inventions, will be open to the public daily,
from ten till four in the daytime, and from seven to
ten in the evening on Mondays and Thursdays,
except during the appointed vacations. On Mondays,
Tuesdays, and Saturdays, and daily during the
Easter and Christmas weeks, the public will be ad-
mitted free ; but on these days books, examples,
models, casts, &c., cannot be removed for study. On
Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays the public will
be admitted on payment of 6d. each person. This
sum during the daytime will enable any person
to consult any books, diagrams, !cc., in the collections
01 education, and to copy any article in the collec-
tions of art. except modern paintings, for which
special permission in writing must be obtained. In
the evening works cannot be removed. An annual
ticket of admission to all the collections, morning
and evening, may be obtained for lOs. All registered
students of the Central School of Art will have free
admission to the library. Occasional students will
be admitted upon payment of ti., which will entitle
them to entrance for six days from the day of the
payment of the fee, inclusive ; a monthly ticket may,
be obtained for Is. Od., and an annual admission
for 10s.

I

MAY 80, 1857.

Vrottetrinp x Varlinnunt.

HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.

Lord LYNDHURST, before the order of the day was
read for going into committee on the Divorce Bill,
called the attention of the house to the state of the
law as regarded actions for criminal conversation.
lie hoped that as the bill passed through committee
a sufficient substitute would be provided for that dis-
graceful form of action. The subject was one of
grave importance, and the feeling both in the house
and among the public was stronly in favour of its
abolition :
Whenever a case of that kind is introduced into a court
of justice we generally find that not only the learned judge,
but also the advocates in the case themselves, reprobate
the action in which they are engaged, and no one has ex•
pressed himself more strongly than m noble and learned
friend who sits at the table (Lord Campbell). lie has
more than once stigmatised this form of action as a scandal
to our law, and has a 6(1, and said truly, that in no country
upon the continent of Europe is siich a proceeding tolerated,
and that it has been mentioned as a mat er of reproach by
legal men from across the water with whom he had con-
versed I believe I can corroborate that statement of my
noble and learned friend. I havo conversed with able and
learned foreigners, and never found any different opinion.
Iu a work recently published I find these words :

The husband pockets the money without shame. The pub-
licity which su•h prosecutions necessarily occasion, and all the
proofs and details of the intrigue, are highly indelicate and
scandalous. The testimony, for instance, of servants- -of young
chambermaids who are brought Into open court to tell, in the
face of the public, all they have heard, seen, or guessed at, is
another sort or prostitution more indecent than the first.

Such is the opinion entertained on the continent of Europe
with respect to these scions. 1 may say, in reference to
that passage, that it is no exaggeration, but, on the con -
trary, falls short of the reality. 1 can only describe the
reality by referring your lordships to a case which was
heard in this house last year—the Talbot case, which lasted
three days, in the course of which most indecent and im•
proper details were given, which were subsequently printed
and circulated throughout this country, and indeed through.
out Eurcpe. That, indeed, was not an action for criminal
conversation, but the evidence given was of the same
character as that usually given in actions of that kind. No
sober, no sensible man can hesitate as to the propriety of
terminating such proceedings.

The noble and learned lord supported his views by
quoting several opinions of eminent legal authorities
upon the propriety of abolishing such proceedings
among them—that of Lord Erskine, who said that he
always felt himself the difficulty of dealing with the
subject when asking damages for the sufferer from a
jury, "for the man who would consider any sum as
a satisfaction for such an injury, deserved no damages
at all." But this was only part of the evil of this
species of action. The state of the woman demanded
consideration :

To her the result is far more important than to any of
the other parties concerned; yet she is not allowed to
appear, she is not allowed to examine a witness, she is not
allowed to empioy counsel—the whole proceedings take
place behind her back. The woman has everything at
stake—her character, her fair fame, her home, the society
of her children, her position in the worn, all her future
prospects of happiness ; and yet, as I have stated, though
she has such a stake in the result, she is nut allowed to
take any part whatever in the action. Can anything be
more scandalous or more inconsistent with the principles
of justice? My noble and learned friend on the woolsack
has said that the woman in these cases is generally guilty.
I have known many instances during my professional
career where a verdict of acquittal has been pronounced,
and where I nresiime, therefore, the woman was innocent.
I have known cases of another description, where a verdict
of guilty has been returned, but where I think that verdict
was not supported by the evidence. I remember that a
noble and learned friend who is now absent enjoying the
charms of a southern climate stated a case within his own
knowledge of a very singular character. An action was
brought for adultery anJ a verdict obtained against the
adulterer. The character of the woman was sacrificed and
lost. She had, from an accidental circumstance, which is
of very rare occurrence, an opportunity of investigating the
case, and it was proved to demonstration, not only that she
was not guilty of adultery, but that she never had any inter•
course with her husband. I therefore ask you, my lords,
as far as the woman is concerned, is it proper that this
species of action should continue ? The noble and !earned
lord on the woolsack, in the observations to which I have
alluded, said that the woman was rarely innocent. Be it
so. Are we entitled on that account to treat her with
injustice ? A man, however suspected, however strong the
evidence against him, is never condemned without being
heard. He has a right to defend his character, to offer
anything in mitigation or palliation of the charge against
him, anything to soften the opinion of guilt which may be
entertained to his prejudice. Well, my lords, I pass from
this to another consideration. An action may be instituted,
and the woman know nothing of it before judgment is
obtained. A man brings an action against a person whom
he alleges to be an adulterer. Judgment is given in
default. No evidence is required, and it is not till after
judgment is pronounced that the woman knows anything of
the proceedings.
The house then went into committee on the bill,
when en amendment was moved by the Duke of
NORFOLK to refer the bill to a select committee. On
a division this amendment TM rejected by amkjority

Tilt PRESS.

of 07. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive were agreed to
without opposition.

Clause 0, which specifies the tribunals to which
divorce cases should be referred, was opposed by
Lord GREY on the ground that the time of the
judges who were to constitute the highest court was
already fully occupied, and that the expense would
place a separation out of the reach of the poor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the clause,
which was ultimately agreed to, as were all the
clauses up to 14.
On clause 14 Lord Sr. LEONARD'S proposed an
amendment to protect women who having been
deserted by their husbands became possessed of
property. In such cases it often happened that the
husband stepped in and claimed the property.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the bill gave
women in this position sufficient protection, but
promised seriously to consider tl,.e point.
The committee divided on the clauses as amended,
when the numbers were :

Contents .. .. 5:2
Non•contents .. 44

Majority

-R

Upon clanse 16 Lord WESTMEATH moved a clause
to precede it, giving powers of re-marriage in cases
where the husband and wife had been separated for
twenty years and upwards. He then entered into a
matter personal to himself, but was called to order
by Lord REDESDALE and Lord DERBY, who advised
him to defer this vindication of his character to a
more fitting opportunity. He accordingly withdrew
his motion.
On clause 111

Lord DONOUGHMORE proposed an amendment,
placing married women in the same position as their
husbands with regard to divorce a vinculo matri-
monii.

The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amendment,
which, though primi-facie reasonable, was practically
inexpedient.
L .rd LvspuunsT declared his intention of sup-
porting the amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL thought the law ought not to be
relaxed in this respect.
The committee then divided:—

.. 20

71

-51