The Express.
London, England, 1857-05-21 00:00:00

gals. VINVIC "[ATRIUM llama Orate owl gaitilart—
Ibi IlariWaaies et Fiala la limit lasriorbla
liaLirt.faerm ead Pray. Wadiocab, UM Jim-

HIGH WATIE AT LONDON BRIDGE.
To u.,-11welim II b.
Towarre--111nbs, Yana" N. Qs.

LONDON, THURSDAY. MAY 21.

TO OUR

A DOUBLE NUMBER of the EXPRESS will
pabliahed se weal ON SATURDAYS•

WITILI regard to the grounds of Divorce and Dis-
solution, the provisions of Lord CRANWOWIIeiI
present Bill are the same as those con-
tained in the Bill of lost session. The
grounds of Dissolution aro—For the husband
adultery without qualification. For the wife : adul-
tery with the qualification of its being—l. Incur
Mous ; 2. Accompanied by such cruelty as, without
adultery, would now bo a ground of divorce ; or 3.
Coupled with wilful desertion for two years.
The only other ground is bigamy. The
grounds of Diroree arc those at present existing,
with the addition of desertion by the husband for

two years, whether accompanied by adultery or not.
We have already more than once expressed an un-
qualified opinion that the remedy thus conceded to
the injured wife is incomplete. As usual, we find
Lord LYNDHURST bringing all the resources of
eloquence and argument to the support of the
views which, on this matter, we must hold

,
to hi just. The great jurist pointed out
with unrivalled force and cogency that by
the Bill as it stood a married man might still live

in vagrant and notorious profligacy, might treat his
wife with grow harshness and cruelty, might even
bring his paramour home to his own house, and the
wife would yet have no power of dissolving the
marriage bond. He met the argument from the ap-
prehended frequency of petitions for dissolution, if
the simple adultery of the husband were admitted as
a ground, by referring to the example of Scotland
and the character of Englishwomen. In Scotland,
where the law is equal for both sexes, no scandal or
inconvenience had been found to result from it ; and
the notion that, if made equal here, our country-
women would be too prompt to avail themselves of
its fall powers, evinces a singularly low estimate of
English wives, a singularly mistaken judgment of
the sex in general. " Nothing," said Lord LIND-
1101LBT, "but deliberate and open adultery would
lead a woman to institute such a suit. She

had everything at stake : she lost her home, her
society, everything that was dear to her—in all
probability the guardianship of her own children—
if she instituted and successfully prosecuted pro-
ceedings before this tribunal." We entirely concur
with Lard Lin DIKES? ; but on this point it may, per
be doubtful whether the public opinion of this
coantry is av yet 'anciently advanced to follow him.
It will probably require several more years of broken
hearts and desolated homes before the manhood of
England is prepared in this respect to " be just and
fear not." On another point, we trust that Lead
iTNDUCBST will succeed in carrying out his views.
The malicious nod wilful abandonment of the

wife by the husband ought surely, on every
ground of reason, to be made, a ground for
dineolation of the marriage tie. The argil-
swab in favour of this proposition are truly
Mated by Lord LYNDHURST to be unanswerable.
AU the closets of the marriage contract, as set forth
In the solemn bump of oar atarels—the procrea-
tion of children, the maims@ at immorality, the
comfort of mutual society and neggra4—are directly
violated by each an ahandenment. Is it not a
amookary to declare a contrast binding when all the
declared objects for which it was engird into are
thus Irretrievably and hopelessly defeated? As far,
then, as regards the grounds d Dimolation and
Divorce, the CHANCILLOO'II MB as oily be assegni
_ _

.
u butabiest Tbe shim et Jodi! as

be Teamed am eatielki wail the invade of diode-
tire in mile woad is the two ems i but wee-
thing will lave lna pined if Lord LY NDHURST
arieteede silks saltier sad wiltal deaths-
meth the mese d dieeektha mew eesiemekled
ly the Bill.

With regard to the other clam of question'
aide of procedure, sad the kind of tribunal to be
adopted—we readily admit that Lord Cautworra's
Bill is to a coasiderable extent an improvement of
the mug* system. It is an improvement to 'A-
nhui@ one proms for three processes, one tribunal
he three tribanabo. It is an improvement to have
abolished the action of cries. con. u a neemeary pre-
liminary in all cases to the right of divorce or diem-
lotion. It is an absurdity, no doubt, though in practice
it would probably prove a barmier one, to leave the
satin for Brim. eat. st ill sublisting as means of redress
for the Wand huaband, after the decree for a &ss
lathe hes been obtained. Surely this is a very
nuadabont method of accomplishing what
ought to be, and we believe might be, a
very simple process. The object, it is urged, is
to give redress against the adulterer: a good
object no doubt in its way ; but why not attain this
object by making it a part of the decree of the Court
promossting the Dissolution, that the adulterer
should be mulcted with all the costs of the proem?
If it be objected that the adulterer is net neesmartly
before the Divorce tribunal, the answer is, let him is
all ears be cited to appear before it. If he shants
hinself, let it be taken si a contemn= of his "AL
If be really means to contest, and ha a grand he
contasdog, his guilt, it is fair sad right that Its
should be entitled to appear before it. Surely Ms
would be for preferable to keeping up the tarn at,
this anon description of action.
The real objections to the new Tribunal are its