New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-06-24

condition of women in England This opportunity
off red itself on the Goth of last month on the occa.
sion of the Lord Chancellor (Cranworth) moving
the second reading of his Divorce and Matrimonial
| Causes Bill. Our readers perhaps know that in
England man and wife can be unmarried again only
By the interpostiOn Of the omnipotence Of Parlia.
ment; which, the lawyers say, can do anything ex-
| cept maxi man o woman, or o woman man.
However this may be, Parliament is the only power
| of weight enough to make a man and woman two
after the law has pronounced them one flesh. And
the Parliament has restricted itself within very
narrow limits as to the exercise of this act of SOW
ereignty. Adultery is the Only cause recognized as
of sufficient gravity to justify divorce, and the ap-
plcant for one must have obtained decree OF sep
sraton mtnsd ct thOro in the Ecclesiastical Court
(the only remedy for the wrong thelsws recognze),
AID aIso verdict for damages in a suit at law.
Tbs, being process costing from 600 to t1,OOo,
is one for the rich sply, and practically it is one for
the husband only. During a century and half,
there have been but four divorces granted on the
application of the wife. Two of these were cases
in which the wifes sister was the party in the
crime. and another that of Miss Turner, young
| heresa, whom Edward GbbOn Wakefield abducted
some five and twenty or thirty years ago and mar
| red.
| The Lord Chsncellor's bill proposed to erect
| new tribunal, consisting of the Chancellor the
Lord Chief Ju.tice of the Queens Bench, and the
Ecclesastical Judge of Probate, to have charge Of
all matters between man and wife. This court to
have the power Of granting divorces d rineulO mat
rimonii, with an appeal to the House Of Lords,
leaving the husband also bis remedy at Common
Law. The causes of the different degrees of
divorce were not to be different from those now
admitted, and the husband only was to have the
right to claim full divorce the wife being left just
in the condition the law now leaves her. Lord
Lynohurst very Justly regarded this as very one
sided and imperfect reform. He moved the refer
ence of the bill to q Select Committee, to report
such changes as might be thought advisable. His
Lordsbip spoke for a space of more than two hours
on the dsgraceful state of English law as regards
women. He described with great feeling the con-
dition of wife who had obtained a separation from
bed ond board for her husbands infdety. II any
personal property falls to her, it becomes his out
Ieht If real estate he has life interest in it. 1t
libeled or injured in any way, she has no right to
sue at the law for redress. She can make no con.
tract Virtually she is an outlaw, and all for no
fault of her own And in actions Of Grim. con-, the
wife, though the party most deeply interested, can
have 10 voice and no hearing. The husband may
take q verdict by agreement with the defendant,
aid thus blast the character of bis wife by cOlu
sion. This had been done in cases in which the
i1noc ence Of the wife had been afterward put be-
yond the possibility Of doubt The case of Lord
Byron, though not quoted by Lord Lyndhurst
illustrates portion of his structures. Being sepa
rated from bis wife in about year after marriage,
Mr Moore tells U.S. if We are not mistaken, that he
did lot intend at first to take any portion of Lady
Byrcns property for his own use. But being
much pressed for money he did finally, and pretty
soon, resort to it, and drew, we think, 1000 per
annun from her resources. for bis purposes and
those of his fair Italian friends.
Lord Lypdhurst claimed for women an equal
right to be divorced from their husbands for sufi-
Gent cause that men hadto be divorced from their
wives. And he would extend the causes of divorce
beyond the single Ofense Of cOnjugal infdety.
Gre IS cruelty, aud other causes, which could not
be enumerated, but which ought to be sufficient to
call for this relief should be added, at the discre
itch Of competent tribunal He cited the law of
Scotland, where divorce, as WILL as ms.rimOny, is
on totally different footing from what obtains in
England, and its operation, to show that the i'll
ef.cs which were feared from more hunane law
90 this .ubect were merely usory. He might
alio have quoted that Of this country, in most Of
the States of which the law Of divorce stands
much as he would make it ia England, and we ap-
preheLd that the marriage relation is as much re-
spected and the law of divorce as little abused as
in any country whsteyer. Of course, We speak
only Of the civilized parts Of the country.
How it may be in the barbarian regions
of Slavery where marriage is prohibited to more
than half the inhabitants, We cannot affirm. Lerd
BrOugham seconded the motion. He rected sew.
eral cases of extreme hardship, and proceeded to
ssy: at was superfuous and impertinent to dwell
"a Minute longer on these gross iDjustces, cruel
.tee, ard inhumanities, which were practiced
upon married women under the present law.
- Unless some redress were afforded, we must be
"content to be held up to mankind as pretending
"to live in civilized country, while really living
''under ~ stem more barbarOus and inconsistent
with itself than eXis I'd in any other part of the
"world." Lord Redesdale was apprehensive Of
evil from too great facilities being allowed for d.
sorces, while be admitted the demand for some re-.
dress. The Earl of Aberdeen was only opposed to
the reference BY the fear Of prolOnsDg the present
stem. He maintained the excellence Of the
working of the Scotch system of marriage and d.
vorce and affirmed that the Scotch law making