The Express.
London, England, 1856-06-28 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 28.

FOR his zealous and enlightened exertions in im-
proving the Government Di•oroe Bill, Lord LYND-
IIURST deserves the best thanks of the community.
If he haa cot done all that he would, he has done all
that he could, and more than lay within the power of
any other single member of the Legislature. Some-
thing, nay much, even if this BM were carried in its
amended state, would still remain to be accomplished
before the English law of marriage and divorce could
be entirely rescued from the barbarism which has to
long disgraced it; but as a decided step in advance—
s* a valuable concession to a crying need of the time
—as an suspicions commencement of a new era in
that legislation which most intimately effects the moat
important relation of human life—there can be no
doubt that all social reformers are bound to give their
cordial support to the measure which stands lot
further consideration oo Thursday next.
Let us state briefly the general nature of the more
important alterations which his lordship has suc-
*ceeded in inserting. In the Bill as originally intro-
duoed by the CHANCELLOR incestuous adultery was,
it may be remembered, the sole ground on which •
wife was permitted to apply for the dissolution of
the marriage tie. Lord La NDRURST, in committee,
endeavoured to urge the adoption of the broad and
simple principle—the only principle of equal justice
—that adultery should in all cases be for the wife, as
for the husband, sn incontestable ground of dissolu-
tion. In this he tailed. As the Bill now geode,
adultery coupled with cruelty, with desertion for fee
years, or with &Only, is a ground for dissolution of
the marriage tie, as well as adultery coupled with
incest. Can there be a stronger proof of the bar-
barism of our marriage laws than the fact that in the
middle of the nineteenth century we aro reduced to
regard this tardy nod imperfect concession as an un-
expected and welcome measure of reform ?
The next step which Lord Mgt:tanner has been
able to secure is important, not only in itself, t.ut in
it■ bearings upon the general question of the pro-
perty of married women. As the law now stands,
when a wife is divorced from her husband—divorced,
that is, a menisci et thoro—all her after-acquired earn-
ings—all property that may subsequently devolve
upon her—is absolutely and hopelessly at the mercy
of the husband. He may—and in very numerous
cases he does—sweep off the whole of her bard earn-
ings—all that she has derived by bequest or inherit.
acce—applying the proceeds, it may be, to the
purpoees of vagrant dissipation, or to the use of the
very mistress for whom the wife was forsaken, and by
whom she has been supplanted. For this intolerable
oppression no remedy was provided in the Government
Bill ; it is effectually put an end to by one of the
clauses introduced by Lord LYNDIICRST. To
this most just and beneficial provision it is satisfac-
tory to find that DO opposition was offered even by
the Bishop of OXFORD. Another evil of the existing
law—that a woman separated from her husband
cannot legally enforce any contract, or sue for the
redress of any wrong, unless the husband consents that
she may use his name for the purpose—is also reme-
died for the first time by Lord LYNDLIURST, who has
inserted a clause providing that in such cases the
separated wife shall deal and be dealt with to all in-
tents and purposes as though she were a single
woman. There is yet another point. By the law as ;t
stands, even in the grossest cases of wilful desertion,
the abandoced wife has no claim to alimony. Lord
CRANWORIII'S Bill conceded this right to her io
eases where the desertion extended over fouryears—
Lord LYNDHURST has redu:ed the period to two
years.

Such are the more important ameliorations which,
should this bill pa e, Lord LT:Mlle/0T will have
been the means of introducing into the English I
law of marriage and divorce. In addition to this, he
made a gallant but Intl:fewest attempt to pot so end I
to the national scandal of that fatnou+ form of action
by which the wrongs of the aff,ctions are weighed in
the same scale as the disputes of the market, in which
the character of the wife may be blasted for ever by
the result of a process to which she is no party, in
which, though her all is at stake, she cannot utter a
syllable or raise a finger on her own behalf—in which,
as recent and notorious events have proved, she has
no protecticn against that vilest of all calla-ions, the
collusion between the husband who would purchase
divorce by dishonour, and the paltry rake who would
pay for the eclat of the imputation, though incapable
of the manhood of the act. The irresistible argu-
ments of Lord LYNDILUB.ST on this point were
feebly met by the suggestion that as actions
of mini. con. were now principally resorted to
not so mach for the sake of damages as with a view
to divorce, they would practically fall into desee•
trade sow that the charge in the law no longer to-

quires the verdict of a jury u a necessary fonnuatict
for further proceedings. It also seems to have beet
considered u a sort of encroachment on the bich.
right of a Briton that the poor man should be pre.
chided, if wronged by a rich adulterer, from mik.cg
a legal market of his own shame. The newt its:
the action of trim. eiin. is still likely to form part Led
parcel of the law of the lend. The mock eulogy of
ALFIERI is not yet inapplicable. England has tot
yet ceased to be the country where •every coms:o•
dity has its ma•ktt price, and horns the L.ghtit
of all."

So much for the Bill; and now a word on tied..
bate. Apart from Lard LYNDHI2II:4'S tear and
brief statement. it has one feature—the oppoe:::oe
the Bishop of OXFORD.
A more diecreditable opposition—one true de.
meging, not to its adversaries, but to its strhor—.(
is indeed difficult to conceive. We can imagine, two
if we cannot comprehend, the state of mind which
might lead a zialous theologian to oppose a n•anifest
social improvement on the dubious authority of a
disputed text. We should undoubtedly regard the
•ictim of a conscientiousnees so morbid as het*
fitted for a college of casuists than an assembly of
statesmen; but, while pitying the weakness ut. the
judgment, we might almost respect the integrity of
the motive. But this is not the posi'ion taken by
the Bishop of OXFORD. He admits that the text I.
free from doubt, but he disputes the policy
of acting upon it. He confesses that, '• after
giving his best eittention to the subject, he
cannot doubt that, according to the words of
our LORD, marriage may be dissolved for the act
of adultery;" bat admitting this, he regards it "as
• matter for further consideration whether it is
expedient to afford facilities for the dissolteion of
marriage even for adultery itself." Surely this is
strange doctrine for a Christian bishop. The Founder
of Christiani:y, the Divine denouncer of all class die.
tioctions between rich and poor, declares without
limitation the right law of matrimony to be 'hat an
act of adultery shall dissolve the marriage bond. The
law of England declares that such dissolution 'hall
be a privilege which none except the rich can buy.
All Christian people may procure divorce on the
ground of adultery, says CHRIST; no Christian
people con so procure it except tholes who ei.n p►y
down 1,0001. in cash, says the law of England. The
law of CHRI T is one thing, the law of England
another ;and • Christian bishop comes forward to tell
us that he prefers the law of England. A-d why?
Because in his opinion it is more conducive to morality
than the law of CHRIST. The question with the
b:ehop, as he himself states it, is "whether, in the
whole, the morality of the nation would be promoted
by landing such facilities as this bill contemplates
for the dieselu•ice) of marriage d vincula even for the
act of adultery." In other words, whether the liberty
of divorce as (according to the Bishop's co an admit
sicn) proclaimed by CHRIST, might not be found lee
favourable to Christian morals thee that superstitious
strictness originating in the Popish error (which the
Bishop, as a prelateot the Anglican Church, is sworn to
denounce) of regarding marriage as a sacrament. Is
there not something eomewhere written about than
who "melee the teaching of CIIRIST of none effect
through their traditions"? and do nut these words
seem applicable to a case like this, where a Christian
prelate on the ground of • partial and unjust law,
founded on an obsolete heresy, stands forth to deprive
a Cho istian people of that rational liberty of divorce
for which the land groans, which the Fathers of the
Reformation cocci did, which CHRIST himself is ad-
mitted to have proclaimed.

The conduct of the Queen, on the occasion of the
contretemps at the levee, was exactly what might
have ben expected from her excelent sense and
presence of mind. When informed by Lord Chinn.
don of what bad happened, her 411- jeety at once
replied :—" I.et the go ntl man be admitted; I shall
be happy to receive him in any costume."

REDUCTO TO FACT.—The Times, which began,
in a fit of horror, on Thursday, with a tale of a frock
coat and yellow waistcoat,—of a nioraing undress
which it compared to a shooting jacket and ehepherd a
plaid trims, re,—bas now bee', " reyiea(ed to state
that the American gentleman to whom seirittaioa
was refused to her Majesty's lAN ea on Wednesday
last is a Professor in the Military Academy at West
Point, and that he wore, on that occasion, his official
costume, a t lue dresecoat with butror s c f the Engineer
Corps, blue pantaloons, white waistcoat, black cock,
and a common hat. It was objected cia the part of
the Master of the Ceremonies that in this attire,
wearing a Week stock, with nn sworn and to dress
hat, he could not pass the Queen. The objection
was made in a manner exceedingly kir,d and
courteous, but the Ulla Nv 8 express, and then
was no discretion to relay it. In this poet.
tion Mr. I) dine, who was about to present two
other gentlemen in company with the Pretence
referred to after having several tint, s urged the
official character of the dress objected to, feeling
pained at the position in which his countryman was
placed, among entire strangers, and in a place to
which he wee entirely unaccustomed, offered to re-
turn home with him, in which suggestion his compa-
nions joined. Under these circumstances the Atilt'
rims Minister left the Palace with the gentlemea
whom he was about to preseot." It is satisfactory,
after three days of unnecessary indigtation, to get a
simple statement of the fact at last—by request.

PRINCE ALBERT'S PREROGATIVE AT 00711.4.—A
letter from G'irhe rf t^e 23 d, in the airman Ar-
no' of Fr tokfort, goys In tr-doe's eittire of the
States Anettrhly a (Retention from Prite• Albert,
coos 'lt of Queen Viet rio, was ewseurleitrri, which tone
an @emetic cootwat to the constitutional low of May 3,1E49.
that cot e itutron having sr e&rded to the prince only a right
of suspensive ..'o, cod the sprier, d main of the pries
having been to to rte public domain. The political
part of the ditll.:ol.y hie been ow tierd by the constiintionsl
Ins of May 3, 1&i2: sot: the fl-social port could only be
ostler' by the convention rsseatly condoled amongst Is
ducal family."
TUE NEW 131,n0r OF GLOUCESTER AND BIM
TOL —The Row. Charlet Bating, Ild A , late rector a All
Soul.. lwshom-olore is to Ito thr new Notion of Glouces-
ter and Bristol. M. is a y brother of the
I late Firs. Lord of 'li' Admiralty. Sir Francis B wing. sad
orrdusted B.A. at Chriot Church (Word, in 1829, IS I
double fire' el tee. He ofileloted f SOON time Ile I unto of
St. Eh' o'oChurrh. to 0 stord, sod was spyo'nted to the
of
coHs
i. w: I:eserl cat
known
•.:A:lll:linri.S;Gnh:r.:.lCT:.b, nin ni:01 rsh world esos
a.Ci'ens:,:rfdthhat :Sr lo
p?etch
s,
ent
of et
Oefo-d one of vie, of genitor!' to elsotene• the trick-
ing of Profiteer r Jowett on the roll e e f tin Atonement.
The new bishop .te born in 1807. end io tworri.ol to s
daughter of the late Thom,, Rood Roan, s.g.. hi P. for
1.. wee. His sister line the lint wl. of 'he Right Hon.
Henry Ltboachert, MP. We b Vero is a, imme-
diate intentioa of carrying intt effect the division of the
see of Bristol from that .if Olouenter. I^ evesrs from the
Herold, that Mr. Trench, wh' woo statrd, • week ago. by
the Tines to have accepted the hishoyr.e, has to'd a Itend
that it was cot twee off. red to him.
THE SEE OF DURHAM. —ln reference to the
rumours which have appeared in the Loneon POMP re.
'meting the immerliote reerecation of the Poo‘w of
Mau, we are east led to Stole that althoggh the cues'
ton of the re^ignatio• of the Bishop his been discussed,
yet so such to alrnatbn his artirl'y taken tilate—•
aor is such • step " immediately c tam plttid " Indeed,
I without the Tot Bing of • sp. ei.l Art of Pori/WA
j the rielinstinn of the bishop could rw. if ti trine& he
IrgsllT actor-tea; the ?reign^ (len ore. hishwric , f wkid
we bell. vs there is but one prteecirrt) Working DA merely
• twigs/Aim of dati, it. but glen • teeignst•on of s peers.
anof.trrtig.,.fiord
,thieithers.hhoilbtossidrozhaledayperoteurithe
in the Houma Peen —Art Autn Adrertiier.
An address haying been presented to her MOW,
by the Lerlotatin Cottrell of the col ,tir of Victoria, Feet
img her Majesty to outhoTios and Permit tie ronornsee os
rma. sad preeengen from an• ono Port of *he Pt I 1101051.
day
stle
alsisityhoet.eb been decried in PiaritryothCleoruntNe:;7d".it'ijaighf:oh u r TOM