New-York daily tribune., 1856-07-30

bi,er complaints from poor pcrsots@ @ 'a' iH,s'
e;ee Of the preseos law. He cited tho Gaze ss
uoo, fellow, tried before Mr.. Justice Msais "e
biu,my. who ssid In txtenustion that his VIE nsd
run .vsy from him with another man, and so nc
tboueht be had right to tske another. Inc Juoee
rctuked this error, and told him that DO snoo'o
have 6r,t procured divorce . "e"sd in tho Hco'e
.;,.,;cs, Court. then instituted suit Tor damages
se.in.t the adulterer, and finally applied 70 tee
H.u,e Of Lords for q bill OF divorce; mat 'no
ubo,e might be done for f1,0OO! "A tnoussno
nounds ~ exclaimed the poor man; why my
Tn,d Infyer had thousand pence at one time In
INV life y, THAT makes no difference rePneo
the Jrdee; "the law is as tell you' ana you
mrs. .ubmIt to it" Surely, there was sense as
We q, pathos in the prisoners response; ins'
|, hard measure, my Lord, to Us poor people VINO
cannot resort TO the remedy the law affords 20 the
rich - The Bishop Of st. Dsvids (rhirlwall) and
Lords Dupeapnou and Redesdale aiso opposed the
facilitating of divorces. The Duke OF Argyll aod
the MARQUIS Of Lansdowne supported the Dill.
Lord Lapsdowne said: ~ have for years thought
"ths. in this country, which boasts the most sd'
"ysnced state of civilization in the world the
l.cause Of woman has partsken Of that situation
which it belds in the least civilized and most bar
mbarous .tates. She occupies condition really In
".r,ior t. that which prevails in any modern c'uo.
"tr-pserior even to that which prevailed In old
Or, me, the great origin and source OF Civh Law
When the report was brought up on the isto
this month, the B.shop of OxS'd moved to strike
out all the clsuses permitting divorces to enner
party by the new Court After debate th's moaon
Vas uea astived-43 IN 10. Lord Derby suggested
proyso prohibiting husband or wife divorced TOT
adultery. from marrying the perOn with whom tho
adultery was committed. LORD Aberdeen saia .nat
such was the law Of Scotland, and that It had
worked well. Lord Lypdhurst sssented 70 the poo
vtso, and it was agreed to, and the Dill 'nus
amended pass the House Of Lords. We nope 70
bave to record its passage also through tne Co"'
noba, though the approaching end OF tne ss'sion'
and the claims of the grouse, which will soon De-
ctpe urgent, may throw some conjecture on isS
success. The clause of Lord Derby, We see, IT'S
thought will endar ger the bill in the Comaons.
The operation of that proviso is certainly OF
questionable expedienoy, not to say moraIity'
az we'll as the Law existing In tnls
State aid come others, forbi1dng one
guilty party in divorce case from marrying again
at su. Such laws are perfectly Intellectual to re-
strain the ofeDse, care but straw to the hre ms
"blood, " while they may be serious obstacles In
the way of reformation and reparatlon. Lofd
Crapworth stated that such o clause was nov al
ways inserted in every bill for divorce, and always
struck out because experience showed that 1t did
not DIT vent collusion. Such restriction ls car
tsiply contrary to the custom Of tee country in suco
marters and it would have made material legal dif-
fertnces in the status of many noble and gentle
families had it alwaI been enforced. 30 /. Is BY no
me impossible that disagreement ma, arise from
this source between the Houses, which may hinder
the passage of the bill at the present session. But
we think it beg ond question now that the imPor-
tan. re orn proposed by it will very soon be sub.
staDtially adopted
There are one or two things worthy of observa-
ton, touching this matter, which do not appear in
the debatts We nean the io11euces which have
unquesriopably promoted If taey have rot pro-
duc.d, these oimationr. Who can doubt that
Charles Dickens has done much toward it by the
art. son he dIex to this very subject 10 "Hard
Times"7 Though inferior to many of his o!her
works, in important particulars i brings out In
sharp ard hard relief the cruelty OF the existing
laws in England relating to marriage If the peo
pie obtain this degree cf relief, it will be owing in
great degree TO the incarnation Of These evils In
the person of Stephen BlscbpOOi This is a ROYAL
preroeative of genius, and We rejoice to see peers
and Eariiaments bOwiDg themselves t. its sway.
Apo'her powerful influence which has been felt,
if lot Acknowledged In this direction, has pro-
ceeded from the Letter Of the Hon. Mrs Caroline
Norton to the Queen, on the subject Of the matri-
ponial roDes Of women, illustrated by her own
case. The Interest excited BY her birth, as the
eIaDddaUeht hter Of Sheridan, her rank, her beauty
and her suferiDss, must have had wide and pro-
found effect in preparing the public mind to receive
ard TO demand such change in the law ss this
This is natural and proper influence. A woman
was the proper advocate for rights, the prigation
of which had afec'ed her 80 cruelty; and, If they
are accorded DO email share Of the credit should
be attributed to Mrs Norton. Her case WAS sia-
eu|arly illustrative of almost all the points on
which reform was urgsd-certainly Of all which
were uDsn mously conceded. Her success Is az
eI IcOuIaeement 10 all resolu!e advocates Of righ!
under whatever Disadvantages Of sex or position
they nsy labor. The importantly even Of the poor
widow will at last extcrt justice from the most
reluctant of unjust judges.
A yefy ancient decentralization of Justice feDfe-