The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-26 00:00:00

con. is worthy of attentive consideration. It is a
reproach to our country that a man should be per-

witted to traffic in his own shame, to receive

what may almost be termed " the wages of sin."
It is a matter in which pecuniary compensation is

altogether misplaced, for the man who could

receive them as a recompense would be un-
worthy of " the smallest coin of the realm." The
only reason that justified the continuance of the

fi4grant scandal was, that by a very absurd regu-
lation, the recovery of substantial damages was

made, with few and rare exceptions, where the

omission could be clearly explained,
an indispen-
sable preliminary to obtaining a dissolution of

the matrimonial contract. But many cases Were

brought into Court merely for the sake of the
damages (!) and still more for the sake of the

c )sts(!) where there was neither the means nor
the intention of taking any further proceeding.

The proposition of Lord CRANWORTH postponing
the action until after a decree for divorce had

actually been granted is a very decided improve

ment on the existing state of the law, that o
Lord LYNDHURST, which would completely abate
the social nuisance is still better, and we ear-
nestly hope that it may speedily, as it must
eventually, receive the legislative sanction I
Before going into Committee, the Duke of
NORFOLK proposed an amendment that the bill
should be referred to a Select Committee. The
Noble Duke desired to prove that " Scriptural
authority was against the main principle of the
Bill,"—viz., that which permitted the divorced
parties to marry again. In other words, he
wished to establish that which is a tenet of his
own Church,—viz., the indissolubility, for any
cause whatsoever, of the nuptial contract. No
exception could be taken to the manner in which
His Grace urged his own views, and we could
wish that some of those who bring forward po-
lemical arguments in either House would display
equal moderation and good taste. But we would
remind the Noble Duke that religious opinions
cannot be controlled by the reports of select com-
mittees, or even by Acts of Parliament. Men
will, in such matters, think and reason for them-
selves. They will claim and exercise the right of
private judgment. Alt who agree in the Scrip-
tural views taken by the Duke, the Bishop of
OXFORD, and others, may act on their own con-
scientious scruples, and abstain from entering
into second marriages : but why should those
who think very differently on these points, who
believe that "it is not good for man to be alone,"
and that •‘ it is better to marry than burn," be
bound by opinions which they repudiate, and
against which they earnestly and emphatically
protest ? We desire that there should be the
most perfect " civil and religious" liberty, and
that no man should be bound by canons or tene
in which he cannot honestly concur.
Let us not, however, be misunderstood.
desire, so far as practicable, that married persons
should live tog( they in harmony, that there
should be mutual forbearance and the greatest
possible indulgence on either side. But when it
is clearly and unequivocally established, that it is
impossible that they can ever again live together,
we would not maintain an enforced celibacy,
which must necessarily, in a large proportion of
instances, prove injurious to public morality—that
the parties should be permitted to enter into
second nuptials rather than to live in open and
unblushing opposition to public opinion, the great
practical injury being inflicted on the innocent
offspring, who should be objects rather of sym-
pathy than punishment. As will be seen from
the Parliamentary Report, the Noble Duke's
amendment was rejected by an overwhelming
majority of 97—there being 123 against and but
26 in its favour.
Would that we could say the same of that sub-
sequently brought forward by the Archbishop of
CANTERBURY. The Most Reverend Prelate car
ried, by a majority of 6, an amendment which
prohibited the guilty parties from marrying again.
We do not suppose that those by whom the pro-
vision was brought forward and supported, were
actuated by any improper views, but we are
thoroughly convinced that there could not be
any thing better calculated to promote the crime, or
more Mimical to the sanctity of the nuptialstate. The
chief check on the seducer has hitherto been the fear
that he might be compelled, by the so-called laws of
honour, to identify his fate with that of his unfor-
tunate victim. He might hesitate to gratify his
passions at the expense of being compelled to bind
himself for life to a degraded woman, who could
never be received in society. But when that fear
was removed, as it would be by the amendment
last night sanctioned, he would give full scope to
his wishes. We believe that fifty would be stimu-
lated to the crime by the prohibition, for one
woman—and it is only aimed against the weaker
sex—who would be deterred by the knowledge
that she could not marry her seducer. We trust,
therefore, that the House of Lords may rec )n-
-sider the question. They will yet have an op-
portunity ; but should they decline doing so, we
have no doubt that the obnoxious provision will
be amended in the Commons, and that their
Lordships will eventually yield, albeit with not
the best possible grace.
The Lord Chancellor promised " most ear-
nestly to consider" a proposition brought forward
by Lord ST. LEOPARDS, for the purpose of giving
protection to a woman, who having been deserted
by her husband, had obtained possession of pro-
perty either through her own industry or from
friends. The bill would only give that protection
after a divorce a mensa et thoro, but there are
many cases, in which an injured woman might be
unwilling to adopt that extreme course for the
sake of her children, a consideration that must
press strongly on every mother, who might yet
require such protection, the wantof which would
compel her to refrain from forgiving the erring bus •
band. We hope that far more may be effected for the
weaker sex, but the proposition of Lord ST.
LEOPARDS would be a vast improvement on the
existing law, and would clearly be a step in the
right direction.
There are other points requiring attention,
more particularly that which would afford relief
to females, as well as male=, where anything ap-
proaching to a condonation was hopeless. These
matters may safely be permitted to rest
on the Judicial discretion ; and any stringent
rules fettering that discretion can only operate
disadvantageously. Surely there could be no neces-
sity for obtaining the concurrence of three judges,
of whom two at least must be selected from the
Lord Chancellor and the Chief Justices or Chief
Baron of the Common Law Courts, if some lati-
tude be not allowed to afford relief where it is
urgently and imperatively called for.

We

The Dowry of the PRINCESS ROYAL was again
brought under consideration last night 1 We
confess that we are bitterly disappointed in the
results. Two divisions were taken. The first,
proposed by Mr. CONINGHAM, t) the effect that
the annuity should be reduced from 8,0001. to
6,000/. was rejected by a majority of 314 ; and
the second, proposed by Mr. MAGUIRE, that the
vote of 40,0001. should be negatived, by a ma-
jority of 343. The toadying principle prevailed 1