The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-20 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1857.

The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill was
last night read a second time in the House of
Lords, there being 47 contents in its favour, and
but 18 non-contents. We earnestly hope that
the matter may be disposed of during the present
session, and that the disgrace to which it is now
liable, may be effectually removed from the An-
glican law. The Lord Chancellor has, in many
respects, improved the measure, but, after all,
the bill which he has brought forward, can only
be regarded as an instalment of what is re-
quired alike by justice and expediency.
There is no doubt, however, that it will be a
vast amelioration of the existing code, and that if
nothing better can be obtained, it will be gladly
accepted, as " a step in the right direction," but
certainly not as a final and satisfactory arrange-
ment of the question.
The veteran Lord LYNDHURST made one of his
most brilliant and conclusive orations, which must
convince any unprejudiced mind. The noble and
learned lord not only proved the propriety of all
that was proposed, but showed the necessity
for further relief to that sex, which we
all profess to respect and reverence, but
treat with so much practical injustice. Lord
CRANWORTH is by far too timid to make a
reformer. He too closely adheres to precedent,
and is unwilling to travel in the slightest degree
from the beaten track, or to overstep the conven-
tional limits assigned by the previous; practice of

the House of LDrds. He should receive a salu-
tary lesson from his distinguished predecessor,
and discard the undue caution which is calculated
to impair the efficiency and value of the measure.
The first great point is the creation of a new

tribunal, and the substitution of a single stringent
and searching investigation, instead of the three
required under the existing system. The Eccle-
siastical Court could pronounce a divorce a
mensti 'et thoro, and legally separate man and
wife, not merely for adultery, but also for cruelty,
for anything in fact that rendered it impossible for
the parties to live together again in concord and

happines4. But it could not altogether dissolve
the matrimonial chain. It required a special Act
of Parliament to sanction a second marriage on
either side. But that sanction was not denied to
any person who came forward with clean bands,

and had money sufficient to put *he Legis-
lative machinery in motion. Thus practi-
cally there was one law for the rich and
another for the poor, or rather the
meshes by which the parties were entangled
were so fragile ' that they could be broken by auy
aggrieved person, who had 2,0001. to spare for the
occasion. No matter how great the hardship and
irreparable the injury, the man who had. not 2,0001.
to expend in the operation, was debarred from ob-
taining redress. For him there might be sym-
pathy, but no means of procuring the only ade-
quate re:ief. His poverty placed him beyond the
pale of the law, and he should submit patiently to
his hard fate.

Nov Lord CBANWORTH proposes tc extend the

area from mess with 2,0001. to those possessing
3001. or 4001. But surely there are thousands
and tens of thousands of sufferers to whom the
latter sum is as difficult of attainment as the
former, and who should still possess a claim for

justice ! He does not, however, legislate for the
million. Sorrow must be arrayed, if not iu vel-
vet, at least in good broadcloth, before it can he
obtruded on the new tribunal ! A Lord Chan-
cellor, a Lord Chief Justice, and a Judge of the
Court of Probate cannot easily be brought to-
gether. The tribunal will, of course, be very
dignified, but we fear the expenses and delays
will he fully proportioned to the dignity.
Still it is better that the forms and
expenses of Parliamentary proceedings and the
triple exposure should be avoided. Even the
Lord Chancellor would be better than the
House of Lords, and a single inquiry, than three,