Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-02 00:00:00

it must be incestuous infidelity. Other causes
are bigamy—five years desertion on the part of
the husband, and cruelty—such dangerous cruelty
as threaten life or limb. Henceforth, any one of
these grounds, combined with infidelity on the
part of the husband, will justify the wife in
demanding a dissolution of the marriage.
After complete divorce, both parties are at
liberty to contract new alliances. Great horror
was at first expressed against the idea of this
permission, but it
,seems the wise and merciful
course. To refuse this permission was to tempt—
almost to sentence —the woman to a life of degra-
dation and dishonour. Even were the offending
parties to intermarry, surely this is infinitely
better than a life of sinnings. Legitimate
marriage, after divorce, may be the only atone-
ment that is possible to be made, and, though it
is far from cancelling the evil or the sin, it
diminishes both. The wife may procure a
separation (not divorce) on proof of two years
desertion by the husband, and her property and
all her future earnings are secured to herself,
precisely as if she were a single woman. The
husband is allowed the same relief, after two years
desertion, on the .part of the wife. In the earlier
form of the Bill imprisonment, of the offending
party, was proposed, but this was struck out at a
later stage. An indefinite fine, too, stood threat-
eningly in the Bill; this also is changed, and the
fine is not to exceed 5001., and then it is for the
purpose of paying the costs attending the disso-
lution of the marriage. The proposed enactments
of the bill are a great reform in a quarter where
it was much needed. The consideration evinced
for the woman is more than we had dared to hope
from the lords of England and the lords of the
creation. She more needs protection, because
she is weaker and more dependent, and it is both
gallant and christian in our legislators to provide
for The Bill, as it appears to us, is not
adapted to lessen the sanctity of marriage, or
relax the bonds of morality. It approaches
to giving a reasonable liberty of divorce. It
permits to separate those -who would continue
miserable, if forced to continue united. It con-
verts what had been a privilage into a right, and
a luxury for tlr.; few, into a relief for the many.
It will do, by ordinary law, what has been done
for 200 years, through the influence of money,
and by extraordinary legislation. If the bill is a
breaking of the law of Christ, what have the
House of Lords been doing all this time ?
If it was moral and christian to grant the relief
of divorce to a peer for 2,000/., how can it be
unchristian and immoral to grant the same relief
to a peasant for 20/. ? Surely the money cost
does not enter into the morality of the action.
The policy of the thing is another question, but
the morality of it cannot consistently be ques-
tioned by lords spiritual, who have again and
again sanctioned the thing without any qualms of
conscience, when the parties applying were rich.
The Bill, while it falls short of absolute perfec-
tion, and of placing the man and the woman on
the same equal level, is yet a large installment of
justice. We do not recollect any piece of recent
legislation that will tend so much to elevate the
peoples ideas of the wisdom and liberality of the
Upper House as this bill. Let them continue to
legislate in this wide and wise spirit, and people
will seriously begin to believe that their function
is to impose a check on the crude legislation of
the Commons. Again we say, all power to the
Lords, and especially to the Law Lords of
England !

THE Select Committee of the House of
Commons, presided over by Sir JAMES GRAHAM,
have terminated their labours on the Mersey
Conservancy Bill, and with those labours they
have come to the determination of reporting to
the House that the preamble of the Bill is true.
On Tuesday, when the Committee re-assembled,
the remaining clauses were considered, and
disposed of; but in the discussions which
ensued on certain propositions made by Mr.
CALVERT, the cloven foot of the promoters was
most beautifully displayed. Hitherto they had
been most emphatic in their desire not to injure
Liverpool. Their sole aim was to put the Port
and Docks on such a footing of management as
would ensure increased and increasing property
to the borough at large. But the two proposals
of Mr. CALVERT showed that the main element
of their proceedings was a determined attempt
to worst the town and trade of Liverpool, no
matter what might be the consequence.

One of the clauses of the Bill contains a proviso
securing the rights of the Merse y and Jr well
Navigation Company, and Trustees of the
Bridgewater Canal. On this proviso being
afire' d to, up starts Mr. CALVERT. and with an
effrontety which one would hardly expect from
a parliamentary barrister—though GOD knows
they are acknowledged to be largely endowed
with that peculiar faculty—proposes to insert a
clause saving the rights of the Great Western
Railway Company, and Birkenhead and Chester
Company. But the proposal was too glaring to
find favour in the eyes even of Sir .f.km ES GRAHAM;
anxious though he was to do the dirty work of
the promoters. A somew)%at keen discussion
took place between Sir TAMES GRAHAM and Mr.
CALVERT —the former showing that the Railway
Companies are the promoters of the Bill,'and the
Committee were about to create a new Trust at
their suggestion,
still they did not seem to have
confidence in ththe object eir own Trust. What coul, dbe
of this move ? Nothing less tha n to
a monopoly of access to a plot of land
along the Birkenhead Docks, which night
hereafter be required in any Dock schenict, ha,t