The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-29 00:00:00

and the complainant must come into court with
•lean heads in order to obtain its interposition.
This part of the case is very clearly and concisely
stated in the Report. It says—" The common
law of England, which follows in this case the
canon law of the Church, deems so highly, and
with such mysterious reverence, of the nuptial
tie,' that the causes of divorce are purposely
limited to a few extreme and specific provoca-
tions ; and the preservation of that union, so long
as it can be secured, is so manifestly essential to
the best interests of society, that before it can be dis-
solved it must be clearly established by the strictest
proof that the offence has been committed ; that
there is no contrivance by which the parties are
endeavouring to escape from their solemn obliga-
tions to themselves and to their children ; that
they cannot discharge their mutual duties by con-
tinuing any longer to cohabit with each other,
and that the party complaining is free from
guilt." _ _

It is on these grounds that the salutary regu-
lations have been adopted under which it is de-
cided " that divorce will only be granted for the
extreme provocations adverted to above; secondly,
that the law will not suffer it to be obtained on
the sole confession of the parties themselves ;
and, thirdly, that it will be refused, even although
an offence has been committed which would other-
wise justify it, if collusion, connivance, condona-
tion, or recrimination can be pleaded and proved.
These rules are all of them founded on the sound-
est wisdom ; and though they may require some
little modification, which will be adverted to here-
after when we come to consider the suggested im-
provements, we conceive that in substance they
ought to be maintained." Under this decree,
the parties cannot enter into new nuptial
contracts ; nor are their relative rights as
to property in any degree altered. It
will not bar a wife of her dower, nor disentitle
the husband to property devolving upon her. The
Court will assign a certain proportion of the hus-
band's income to a blameless wife, that proportion
being dependent on numerous contingencies—such
as the condition and station of the erring hus-
band, the number and probable expenses for the
maintenance and education of the children ; and,
also, from which source the bulk of the fortune
was originally derived.
In the olden time, a divorce a mensd et thoro
was of a more complete character than it has been
for many years past. Before the Reformation,
marriage was regarded as a sacrament, and could
only be dissolved by a Papal Bull, or dispensation
from the supreme authority—the Court of Rome.
The subject, however, was subsequently atten-
tively considered, and Archbishop CRANDLER is
known to have entertained the opinion, that
greater facilities should be allowed for getting rid
of an adulterous wife, that, in the words of the
report, " more extensive liberty of divorce should
be allowed." This was unquestionably the early
view of the Church of England. In the Mar-
quis of NORTHAMPTON'S case it was decided, that
"the band of wedlock being broken by the mere fact
of infidelity, the second marriage was lawful."
This latitude was, however, subsequently materi-
ally restricted. At first, bonds were taken from
the parties, the condition whereof was, that they
should not enter into a second marriage, the mere
fact of such obligation being deemed essential—.
showing that without it parties might have again
contracted matrimony if they thought proper.
This restriction was materially extended, when
(in FoLTAMBIE'S case) it was decided by the then
Archbishop of CANTERBURY, that " adultery was
only a ground for divorce a mensd et thoro." Not-
withstanding that rigorous determination, Parlia-
ment rendered such a divorce a sufficient defence
to an indictment for bigamy.

The legislative remedy now allowed, crept in
very gradually. The first case was that of Mr.
Linurrort, where it was very limited, extending
only to the issue, but not authorising a second
marriage. Lord Roos, however, got more ample
relief—a Bill .being brought in to enable him to
marry again, and "it enabled him to do so, and
gave to the children born in such wedlock the cha-
racter of legitimacy and the capacity of inherit-
ing."
The reason assigned for this important prece-
dent thus established, is rather strange. It was—
that " there was no probable expectation of pos-
terity to support the family in the male line, but
by the said JOHN MANNERS Lord Roos." The
aristocratic leaning was there exhibited rather
more openly, but not more plainly or decisively,
than it has ever since been ; the grievous and—
to all but the wealthy classes—ruinous expenses
that must necessarily be incurred in applying for
a Legislative remedy, operating as a practical prohi-
bition to any divorce d vineulo matrimonii, how-
ever grievous the conduct of the offender, and
exempting that of the injured partner.
It was only in the year 1700 that the right to
obtain a divorce a vinculo matrimonii was defini-
tively established, which has continued unaltered,
save by Lord LOUGHBOROUGH'S regulations, until
the present time. The various stages in the pro-
ceeding—the verdict in a Common Law Court be-
fore a Judge and Jury, the decree of the. Eccle-
siastical Court for a divorce a mensci. et thoro,
should be obtained, unless very special grounds
could be shown to justify the omission before the
petition for the bill could be presented. This led
to the enormous and useless expenses, which, even
in an unopposed case, amount to 7001. or 8001. at
least, and in a contested case to several thousands.
We have thus gone through the law as it now
stands : on a future occasion we shall consider the
proposed alterations and ameliorations proposed .by
this very able and important document.

General PrincE has now formally entered upon
office. The day of his installation was unpro-
pitious--snow-storms did not spare the procession
itself ; yet such was the enthusiasm, that thousands
even walked the streets all night, to be ready for
the great show of the Republic on the following
morning. We, who on every occasion throng to
greet and cheer the beloved SOVEREIGN whom from
her infancy we have educated to govern us, can
well comprehend the fervour with which our re-
publican descendants give their quadrennial wel-
come to the man of their choice.

President PIERCE is the very man for a Repub-
lican President—with none of that commanding
talent or genius which would prejudice his election
through the envy of jealous inferiors, or which
could make him dangerous in the highest station,
he has still competent ability for the duties of his
office, and is an American both in his excellences
and in his defects. His early life gave little pro-
mise of anything remarkable ; it was spent under
the care of a father who had fought in the revo-
lutionary Vl/4' ar, and who trained him from boyhood
in democratic views and principles. Born in
1804, called to the bar in 1827, he was elected a
member of the State Legislature in 1829, a position
he retained till 1833, the two latter years filling
the office of Speaker with considerable approbation.
In 1833 he was elected a member of Congress, where
he also remained four years, gaining the reputa-
tion of a working member rather than that of an
orator. In 1837 he obtained a seat in the Senate,
during which time, as the Whigs were in the as-
cendant, he learned the duties of a minority, but
resigned after five years, intending to retire into
pivaie life. Hence, in 1846, he declined the office of
Attorney-General, proffered him by Mr. POLK.
The Mexican war, however, drew him into active
life again as a Brigadier-General. He took an
active part in the campaign under General SCOTT,
and, although he escaped all harm from bullets
and cannon balls, he for some time was seriously
injured by the hunter-like accident of a fall with
his horse and under it, almost endangering the
loss of one leg. General PIERCE has, therefore,
had ample
experience of the various phases of
American public life, has acquitted himself through-
out with credit,
and will doubtless make an ex-
cellent average President. More we can hardly
expect.

Efis inaugural speech is quite characteristic of
ihisn i
tp
_thanarty in
, andmohsits 'co
of
our „
QuEwsuntry. With
mthnechm
lessn'
Speeches," it is, of course, many times their
length, and adequately oratorical. In its some-
what staid pomposity, it strongly reminds us of
the grandiloquent oration with which the KING of
PRUSSIA opened his first Constitutional Chambers is