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

tal. 4w
, UM

TA) t

,44

•

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1853.

The first Report of her MAJESTY'S Commissioners
appointed in December, 1850, to inquire into the
law of divorce, particularly into the mode of
obtaining divorces a vinculo matrimonii, will be
found in another part of this day's impression.
Last week we published the suggestions agreed on
by six out of the seven Commissioners, but the,
document is one of such interest and importance,
that we now give it in extenso, together with
Lord ThrarsnArx's reasons for not entirely con-
curring therein. The great and universally acknow-
ledged ability and learning of the noblemen and
gentlemen engaged in the inquiry, would entitle
any recommendations which they might offer to
Parliament to respectful and attentive considera-
tion. But this Report requires no adventitious
aid. It depends not on the high reputations of
the parties from whom it emanates. It possesses
intrinsic excellence that will at once arrest atten-
tion, and commands the assent of every unpreju-
diced person. It contains, in the first place, a
very clear and able exposition of the existing law
on the subject, pointing out the changes that have
generally been introduced, and then suggest& the
alterations by which, in the opinion of the Corn-
mission ers, it might be materially improved, together
with the reasons by which they have been induced to
arrive at such conclusions. The various points
are discussed with great moderation--the con-
flicting views entertained thereon fairly and im-
partially put forward, and the balance struck with
nice and careful discrimination.

The first suggestions relating to the divorces
d mens 4 et thoro—from table and couch, heretofore
granted by the Ecclesiastical Courts, are, save as to
the new tribunals in contemplation, to which the
jurisdiction in all such cases is proposed to be
transferred, as follows :—That the distinction be-
tween divorce a M€ 71.34 et tn' orc and divorce a yin-
ciao matrimoliii shall still be maintained : That
the grounds for divorce a mensal et thoro shall be
conjugal infidelity and gross cruelty : That wilful
desertion shall also be a ground for divorce a
mend et thoro, or else shall entitle the abandoned
wife to obtain from her husband a proper main-
tenance by way of alimony : That divorces a
mend et thoro may be obtained by the wife for the
above-mentioned causes, as well 43 by the hus-
band.
These divorces, it will be seen, are of a very
partial description, being, In fact, neither more nor
less than decrees authorising the parties to live
apart from each other, and giving the wife,
if innocent, a separate maintenance, Propor-
tioned to her husband's situation and re-
sources. They may be granted at the suit of
either party, and will be dissolved by the recon-
ciliation of the parties. They have hitherto been
granted either in cases of adultery or cruelty, to
which the Commissioners very properly propose
to add a new cause—" wilful desertion"—which
will entitle the abandoned parties to relief—re-
cognising the injured state of feelings that must '
result from such conduct, and enabling the per-
son so deeply wronged to refuse to return to duties
that had been so grossly violated by their capri-
cious partners. It is right and proper that relief I
should be sparingly and charily administered. It I
is not every trivial quarrel, or even serious provo-
cation, that should justify " men in putting asun-
der those whom GOD had joined together." No,
the offences must be of such a character as to
render it almost impossible that they could ;
subsequently live together on their previous foot-. I
jug. There must be very gross misconduct '
on one side to justify such an extreme proceeding,

and the complainant must come into court with
clean hands 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 cf 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 menset 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 ,subjeet, however, was subsequently atten-
tively considered, and Archbishop CRANMER 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 tb e 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 FOLJAMBIE'S case) it was decided by the then
Archbishop of CANTERBURY, that " adultery was
only a ground for divorce et 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.
LURENOR, 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 a vinculo 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 d mensd 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 PimacE 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 war, 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
pivai e 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
m acocisdtenetndoafnagefrialnlgwtihthe
his horse and under it,
loss of one
p
ne 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.
His
man, his inaugural
speech is quite characteristic of
theparty, and his country. With
much less in it than in most of our ~ Quizzes
Speeches," it is, of course, many times their
length, and adequately oratorical, In its some-
what staid pomposity, it strongly reminds us of
i
the grandiloquent oration with which the KING of
PRUSSIA opened his firstConstitutonal Chambers in

person. Its sentiments are, however, the only real
concern of other countries ; but these are not
always easy to ascertain, through the lengthened
phrases in which they are involved. A tribute
to the energy and patience of their forefathers, in
securing their own liberties, appears to be the
basis of a declaration, that while America will
always, both by words and acts, encourage the
downtrodden in struggling for freedom, yet Ame-
rican example will always be the great power of
its advocacy of human rights. With marvellous
inconsistency in so bitter a slavery-man, he re-
marks, however, " that no example can be power-
ful for lasting good, whatever apparent advantages
may be gained, which is not based upon the eternal
principles of right and justice." As the General
strenuously maintains that the American Union
is based upon the right of Slave States to buy
and sell men and women, like cattle, for labour or
for prostitution, as the case may be, and upon the
duty of Free States to aid them in so doing, we
should like to know whether he regards selling
men, and kidnapping the fugitives for bitter
bondage, as " eternal principles of right and jus-
tice." He thinks their forefathers erred, however,
in supposing that the Union could ever become
too large. Their stars have multiplied threefold,
and they still cohere, and co-operate harmoni-
ously. In connection with this fact, a limit
is given, as we understand it, that Cuba
may be safely added to the Union, and may
be a great advantage. to it ; but it is indicated
that it will be obtained by dollars and not by
piracy, and that any violation of the law of nations
would be treated by him as it deserves to be.
European nations are also warned that they may
not extend their jurisdiction on that side of the
Atlantic. The Great Republic may purchase
Cuba, and take huge slices of Mexico, but it
must have no competitors in the auction, and no
imitator of its military acquisitiveness. It would
seem, according to MONROE and PIERCE, that the
most peaceful colonisation or acquisition of the
vast unoccupied portions of South America by
European Powers, would be considered a casus
WU by the huge Northern Republic 1
All the world is duly warned not to touch an
American. Poor and untitled though the Repub-
lican may be, the stars and stripes protect him
whithersoever he may wander ;—he may stand un-
abashed even in the presence of Princes, " with a
proud consciousness that he is himself one of a
nation of sovereigns." The General should ex-
plain a little here for the sake of foreigners who
read his Manifesto. Does he mean that
all the whites are sovereigns of slaves ? be-
cause we are accustomed here to think that
such sovereigns ought to blush before every Eng-
lishman out of Newgate. Or does he mean that
the 20, 000, 000 whites are sovereigns over their
own limbs and actions, because we are much the
same. Perhaps he means that they are a nation
of sovereigns, because they elect their own Sove-
reign. We can assure him that we, too, have
the Sovereign of our heart's choice, and that two
events, at least, in our history have shown the
world that we will have no other. To us, too, it
seems somewhat like boasting, that every man has
a one twenty-millionth of the national sove-
reignty. We really need a microscope to discern
the infinitesimal dignity. After touching on the
army, and objecting to a large standing army, but
commending the Military School at West Point,
to which he was once opposed ; after praising the
skill and self-devotion of the navy ; after pro-
mising the most rigid economy, apprising them
that he cannot find offices for all his partisans,
and that he will eject no more Whigs from minor
offices than State necessity demands, he comes to
what is apparently one main object of the speech
—the defence of Slavery and the Fugitive Slave
Laws. He permits no mistake here. On this
subject he is a perfect STRAFFORD. His plan and
advice is THOROUGH. The slave-catching laws
are to be " unhesitatingly carried into effect
in the Free States. " The Union" is, as it has
long been with him, the object of an admiration
quite. as " enthusiastic and fanatical" as the zeal
for the rights of the sla,ve which he denounces.
And all this, on the part of the present and past
generations, he denominates a self-sacrificing prin-
ciple! Self sacrifice for 20,000,000 of White
Americans to sacrifice 3,000,000 of Black Ame-
r-icans to Federalism and dollars. Yet even General
PIERCE dare not look this iniquity in the face.
The word "slave" does not occur in the American
Deed of Independence, nor does it in the General's
speech ; for in his inaugural Address he . discards
the odious monosyllable, and 'baptises it with the
long pretty name of "involuntary servitude." In-
voluntary servitude ! Bless us—what next ? Is
" domestic institution" worn out ? Surely we
shall hear of involuntary Generals and Presidents
next. We know- not whether it will be regarded
as " European interference on that side the
ocean," but we cannot tolerate 'such corruption of
our language anywhere. We, who made the
language, mean by "involuntary" what is done
unintentionally or without choice, not what is done
against our will. If the blacks are all in servi-
tude only involuntarily, as soon as their wills come
into action again, they will be off from servitude,
and fugitive slave laws are an absurdity. An
American President can do much, but he cannot,
even on behalf of the "Union," remake our
language. If he will be the President of a Slave
Republic, and " thank PROVIDENCE" for it, he
must learn to call bought men not " involuntary
servants," but slaves ; and labour performed
under the lash and the cart-whip, not involuntary
but " compulsory servitude."