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

The late London papers give the particulars Of
the Matrimonial and Divorce bill, Of which we
have spoken once or twice, and the Pssssge Of
which through the House OF Lords is recorded BY
our Own Correspondent in bis last letter from Lon
don. It's details and history may be Interesting 70
tie large class Of our readers who regard efforts
for the Improvement Of the condition Of women
anywhere as smopg the most important OF the
signs Of the times Ard certainly it does seem
strange that snch anomalous injustice should have
been pt rmitttd b. remain part and parcel OF En-
gsh law until this day, this bill is Intended TO
r,medy Only we have to remember that it IL but
Of comparatively late years that Americ an iegis'
lsticn has taken whatever steps it may have made
in the came direction. Lord L}ndhurst has fully
redeemed his implied faith in this matter. and has
taken ,he 'ead, If not the sta,ive, in forwarding
it in a manner most honorable to him ss lawyer
and as q sta'esman.
The bill provides for the erection Of separate
tribunal for the trial Of divorce cases and matr-
nobiol csuses generally, to consist OF the Lord
Chancellor the Chief Justices of the Queens
Bereh and of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief
Baron Of the Exchequer, and the Dean Of Arches,
the Chief Ecclesiastical Judge. This last Judge
to sit alone in all cases now coming within his Jd-
risdictiop, extending 10 separations msssd fhoro
but divorces rimeslo mssrimoai to be decreed by
the whole Court or quorum Of it. An appeal to
lie from the Dean to the Court, and from the Court
t. the House Of Lords; but only upon questions Of
law. As the law now stands, woman separated
from Der husband by decree Of the Ecclesiastical
Courts for his adultery cruelty, has no legal ex
steBce, or remedy for wrong Ii she inherit or
acquire personal property, the husband can help
himself to it at bis pleasure Ii land fall to her,
be bas q life estate in it. She can enter into no
legal contract If she is injured in person or rep
utahop, she cannot enter into any Civil Court for
damages. Her husband only eau obtain this re-
dress, and the proceeds 20 to hin and not to her
A more cruel condition Of thiees can hardly be
imagined than that OF an innocent woman who has
been driven to obtain a separation from fai.hles'
or brutal husband. This state of things Lord
Lyrdhurst's Amended Bill proposes to remedy:
/. BY allowing woman separated a nemsd ct fhoro
to hold property TO her own use against her hus-
band and to dispose of it BY grant or will as che
pleases. 2. BY allowing such woman to sue and
be sutd Us femme sole, with all The legal rights Of
an unmar, led womsn. On theee points, the Com
mitee to which the Lord CAasceor's Bill had
been referred were unanimous, and no opposition
whatever was made 70 them in the debate.
Lord Lyndhurst wished, Sd, to abolish entirely
the present action of damages for Grim con. This
he dt scribsd as ga scandal to civilized country,
"sId which excises the horror and disgust OF other
" civilized nsiiops." Beside this il expo%ed the
wife, who was really the parry mo.tin interest, bat
whe was not allowed to be heard in her defense, to
coiiusive yerdic's, by consent of the husband and
the defer dsnt, by which the reputation of per.
f. city innocent woman mig CHS be ruined through the
c,btp rscy Of two rascals. His L rdship cited
,eIy curious case in Poi t. on the authority ofLord
Broughsm An action fci adultery was brought,
verdict with nominal damages obtained by agree
nt Ut of parties end the lady lost her character and
as driven from society. After lapse of eighteen
moths or two years, she wss able to provetO
the satisfaction of the same Court that there
wac not the slightest ground for the ac-
cpsaiicr. This measure the Committee was
not prepared to recommend, nor yet the fourth
smt bdmen', which Lord Lyndhurs. pressed upon
il, which would have given women the same right
to divorce rineulo from their husbands for adul.
terry that men have from their wives. Lord Lynd-
hurst quoted Scripture the Scotch law and various
authorities in favor of bis view but the only causes
of divorce the Committee would allow women were
adultery the part Of the husband, aggravated by
cruelty or by incest BY bsauy or BY desertiOn for
mole than two years. Alimony was also proposed
to be allowed to wife after two years desertion
by the husband.
The Lord Chancellor (Cranworth) agreed 10 the
material provisions Of the bill but differed from
Lord L. nthur.t az to the abolition Of the action for
Grim. con. He thought there were cases in which
justice required pecuDiary punishment on the one
hard and il demDifcati' on the other, while their
frequency woul6 be very much diminished BY this
bill, which made such suit 10 longer Indispensable
to divorce. He also opposed the granting di.
vorces to women for the adultery Of their husbands,
maintaining tba. public opinion in England would
not sustain it. The main onus Of defending the
preseIt state of things fell, as usual, on the Bish
ops. TIE Bishop Of Oxford (wilberforce,) took the
laboripg oar into bis epicopal hand. But even hs
did not oppose the provisions for securing the
p. operty aid person Of woman divorced a mensd
for the FAULT If her husband. Hh LOrdship had
entertained grave doubts whether marriage could
be dis, olytd at all, even By adultery. Though it
would SIT N as If Christ himsef had made this mat
ter as plain it well could be, the Bishop thought
that the doubts Of st. Augustine on the subject
were worthy Of grave consideration. Unform.
l. 0..cx L. r. IL