The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-26 00:00:00

stitutionallimits within which the King holds his
dominions, the protest was based. And to these
points the American Commissioner responds by
saying :—" To me it is not surprising that the mer-
chants and landed proprietors, whether Americans
or others, should perceive great commercial advan-
tages in such a connection, considering that the
principal part of the commerce of the islands is with
the United States, and that the islands must look
almost exclusively to the Pacific coast of the United
States for a market for their products and the
means of paying for their heavy imports. I per-
ceive, therefore, nothing very extraordinary in the
project remonstrated against. - And if now, or at
any future time, it shall be found decidedly for the
interest of both countries to unite their sovereign-
ties, I am unable to perceive any treaty of moral
obligations on the part of either to forbid the de-
sired union or any good reason for foreign inter-
ference to prevent it." There is something so
extravagantly ridiculous in the foregoing asser-
tions relating to the commercial dependence
of the Sandwich Islands on the United States,
that their author could not escape contradiction..
In truth the facts are so widely different to the
statement of the American Commissioner, that he
absolutely contradicts himself in the second para-
graph of his dispatch, where he goes on to say, that
" French and English subjects might still be en-
titled to the privileges of the " most favoured nations,"
and, on the score of commercial advantages, cannot
well complain of being subjected .in these islands
to the revenue laws of a country which consumes
and pays for French manufactures and other pro-
ducts to the amount of 40,000,000 dollars annually,
and of British goods to the amount of 100,000,000
dollars annually—the revenue laws of a country
rapidly growing, and whose trade is now of more
value to Great Britain and France than that of any
of their colonies, if not indeed of all of them added
together, vast as English colonies are.
Here Mr. LUTHER SEVERANCE proves our case.
He shows in fact, that by the annexation of the
Islands in question, England will forfeit commer
cial advantages, which yield a return of 100,000,000
dollars annually, and whose trade is now of more
value to Great Britain and France than that of all
their colonies put together, vast as English colonies
are.
,Beyond this point it would be futile to follow
Mr. SEVERANCE. The object of the American Go-
vernment is now before both the people of France
and England, and their respective Cabinets, and
we must necessarily pause awhile to allow time for
the expression of some well-matured opinion from
the administrations of the two great commercial
nations whose interests are jeopardised by a
re-enactment of all the horrors of pro-slavery
aggression. In the meantime England is not in
a position to abandon so large a portion of her
foreign trade and other vital interests, in order
merely to appease the hungry ambition of the
slave7holding annexationists of the Mississippi.

AN extraordinary case has lately been brought
before the Consistory Court, wherein a lady—
mirabile dictu !—sues for a divorce, a mensa et thoro,
against her husband, on the alleged ground of
adultery and. ill-treatment.. Full reports of the
proceedings have been going the round of the
newspapers; and although they in no wise tend to
edification, still the principle involved is most
important, and deserves the utmost consideration.
Signor Ciocci, a young gentleman of prepossess-
ing manners and considerable acquirements, who
holds the appointment of Italian Professor at Eton
College, Brighton, pays his addresses, for a con-
siderable time, .to a lady (we believe the daughter
of a clergyman), named Miss JE3i. IMA FRANK. She
is somewhat older than her admirer, and is in
possession of alarge fortune. They finally become
man• and wife ; • and, • for • a short time, much
affection seems to exist between them. After a
few months, however, Mrs. Ciocci leaves her
home—remains for a considerable time concealed
—and subsequently institutes the suit to which we
have before alluded. Evidence pro and con is
adduced of a most disgusting and contradictory
character—and the Court, in order to consider the
evidence, reserves its judgment. In matrimonial
contests especially, it is most difficult to arrive at
the truth, or know which party to censure ; and
those legally appointed for such a purpose, have
both a disagreeable and onerous duty to perform.
Ordinary Courts of Law are bad enough,. Heaven
knows ! but even that of Chancery itself, in
its un-reformed condition, would have been prefer-
able to these musty, dusty, rusty, ,extortionate
Ecclesiastical tribunals. English law is, in several
instances, fearfully defective ; in none, perhaps
more so than with reference to divorce. The very
attempt to obtain justice, in this respect, involves
a protracted litigation, and an immense outlay of
money ; consequently, the wealthy can only ven-
ture on such a course. It is an old saying, and a

true one, that " there. is One law for the rich and
another for the poor ;" and this reproach is only
too well merited. Why should not justice be
attainable by all individuals alike? It is.monstrous
and iniquitous to suppose that, because one man
is more prosperous in a worldly consideration than
another, he should have legally an undue advantage
over his fellow. It is an essential requisite in the
constitution of justice that it should be equally
and easily attainable by all clasSes of a community
irrespective of their social rank or condition.

We have no disposition to relax unnecessarily the
bond of matrimony; but we contend that, under
certain circumstances, the law should permit and
afford facilities to parties not only to live apart and
enjoy the conjugal name merely in a prohibitory
sense, but to have full and free permission to form
other matrimonial alliances. We can hardly con-
ceive of a tyranny greater than that which
obliges parties of conflicting tendencies and tem-
peraments, and with no common sympathies or
interests, to live together in daily intercourse, in
open violation of all that is solemn and beautiful
in the marriage compact; and which, even in case
of positive infidelity, affords no relief without a
most harassing and expensive course of litigation,
first in the Ecclesiastical Court ; and, secondly, in
the upper House of Parliament.

The laws of most countries have empowered
husbands to put away their wives. Among
the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, this privilege
obtained ; and the same authority is exercised to
this day by the Turks and Persians. The laws of
England do not sanction such a right—although
they have formerly permitted the employment of
corporeal punishment by the male. But, says Sir
WILLIAM BLACK STONE, " This power of correction
was confined 'within reasonable bounds, and the
husband was prohibited from using any violencQ
to his. wife, aliter quam ad.Virum, ex causa regiminis
et !,eastigationis sue, licite et rationabiliter pertinet.
The civil law gave the husband the same, or a
larger authority, over his wife; allowing him, for
some misdemeanours, flagellis et fustibus acriter
verberare uxorem ; for others, only modicum castiga-
tionem adhibere." However, in the reign of the
second CHARLES these laws were modified. We
only regret that so many should be found at the
present day resolved to • stick up foi old privileges.
The Divorce Commissioners have had this
matter for a long time under consideration. They
have pointed out the expediency and necessity of
modifying and simplifying the lawS appertaining.
to divorce, and assimilating them more closely to