New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-18


law Of the land. The whole subject Of marriage and
divorce vss delegated 10 spiritual tzibonal- Those
tribunals proceeded upon their own principles they
were not subject to the aw Of the Stse and undoubs
edly the doctrines Of the Roman Catholic Church pre-
| vailed in them. When the Reformstisn came, new
view wss taken Of the question. The notion OK Ear
rage being a sacrament no longer regarded a.
part Of the doctrine Of the Church Of England. The
necessity for the introduction of new principles was
universally recognized Statutes were passed 6oth IN
the reign Of Henry VIII and in that OF Edward VIZ
delegstipg 10 wechosen and extensively constituted
commiseit the duty Of reforming oil the laws OF In
| gland relating b ecclesiastical matters Inc re-
suit Of that inquiry was on record. The CON-
| missioners were unanimous in altering the re-
| ceived doctrine Of the Roman Catholic Church,
ana in accepting the principle that marriage should De
dssouble for two or three causes, OF which sdutery
Of course WAS the most common. But II there was
any thing in which the reformation was more than
usually incomplete il the mode Of dealing with the
eccl.siastcal tribunals. Those tribunals, instead 81
beiBg subjected 10 the ordinary rues OF law and re-
| Rarded as ROYAL Courts, receiving their authority
from the Crown, and administering the common law
Of the land, permitted to retain their ecciesas
cal character to exercise their peculiar functions
and to administer their own peculiar principles. The
| result that, although for considerable penod
probably for nearly century, after the Reiorinston
marriage regarded as a bond Of union dissoluble
| for adultery yet about the commencement OF the
seventeenth century the old doctrine restored By
decision Of the Star Chamber, and the ecclesiastical
COURT were found not TO have the power OF giving
| divorce q rincu!O mdtrimoRi. Inus the Imperfect
juri dctiOn Of the ecclesiastical tribunals again es
| tabisbed, and no other court armed with au-
thoity ~ the tie Of marriage on the ground Of
adultery The matter remained in that state interup
ed of coure, during the time OF the Commonwealth
| until Parliament, coming 10 the relief OF the law
aDo Of what might be called the necessities of the
country established that ystem Of granting divorces
| which had since been administered through the me-
dunn Of legislative assembly, but upon principles
purely judicial. Ii was an undouoed fact, therefore,
that from the time of the Reformation until now the
necessity of having change in the purely ecclesiast
cal law and the necessity OF introducing the principle
that marriage should be dissolube for adultery had
been recognized by the Legislature, and for consid-
enable period by the eccesiastical tribunals. Ante
rOr to The Reformation the unreasonable law OF the
indissoubilty Of marriage was, to certain extent,
| atoned for in the way in which unreasonable laws
were always met viz: by the Introduction OF vast
number of fctions evasOns and grounds for escaping
the operation of the law, and the practical result as
testified by all the historians and jurlsts OF the time,
was that It was easier to obtain divorce r'Hcaf0
narmOni, anterior the Reformation than alter the
principles Of the Reformation had become established.
The de- sion of the Star Chamber in the Fohlsmbe
case, limiting the jurisdiction of the e:ceslastlcal
| courts, was given about the year iooo, ana
very shortly after the Restoration the Legisa-
| ture began TO give relief to the country by
| the introduction of system OF Parliamentary
divorces. Now when they spoke OF legislative inter.
ference and called nothing more than the passing OF
peculiar laws 10 meet peculiar emergencies, denom-
! Mating those judicial sentences OF Parliament as mere
prireg,a they used language altogether inaccurate
and iIap'. The administration OF justice upon settled
PRINCIPLES previously established and according to
ru, previously fixed WAS judicial act and II matter
| ed not whether the duty was discharged BY body
calling itself Legislature or by two or three lnd-
yduas sitting IN ordinary court OF justice. That
| interference on the part of Parliament 10 truth
judicial interference prompted by the necessities of the
| country, and the only mode by which justice could
be administered in the absence OF any regular rounai
l.. al. L.1,t fntf ban rIn nj
| of the law. That was the mode in which the law Of
divorce had been regularly administered by the Legs
ature for period OF $50 years. Parliament and the
House of Lords in particular, had laid down general
rules affecting applications for divorce, regulating the
form of procel uTe and determining the circumstances
unoer which aggrieved party might apply Tor di-
yorce II was impossible, there fore, to deny that
| law of divorce well known and well understood, ad-
uinrteIed upon settled rules had prevailed in this
| country for nearly two centuries, by which 1t
| was held that marriages were capable OF being
snnuled. He was anxious to lay down that position
at first it had become too common among critics
and speakers upon the snbect to declare that by law
| marriage was incapable of being dissolved, and such
Statements implying that the Oil DC was about 70 pro,
law to divorce, tended TO create hostile feeling to-
| ward the measure. He had endesvored 10 prove by
slight historical deduction that we had at present IN
the House Of Lords tribunal for that purpose proceed
ing upon certain and permanently settled rules. In
the Of the jurisdiction exercised by the House
| OF Lords, and after them by the House Of Commons,
exceptions had been established 10 the general
| principle that marriage dissolube for adultery;
and tie rule of the law might be thus simply de-
| scribed: An injured husband who established case
| against his wife entitled to divorce, unless it
could be proved that he had been guilty Of collision
Of connivance, unless he was open 10 recrmina on
| and had been guilty OF acts which would en-
title the wife to be separated from him by a
| decree Of the Ecclesiastical Court. Those rules
| bad been established as to the right of the hus-
band 70 obtain divore, but certain conditions had
| also been imposed by the House Of Lords which, ex
CO of under peculr circumstances, they were not 10
the habit Of relaxing. 1t was necessary that man
| seeking divorce shoud hrrt prove the adultery in
the Ecclesiastical Court and obtain from that tribunal
| decree for q divorce msnsd ct thoro. He must
also in where il was possible, bring an action ut
| law against the adulterer-that action for criminal
ration which had been termed the reproach of
our laws IHea, hear. In that action he must again
prove the adultery aud having established his case in
that proceeding he entitled to apply ~ the House
of Lords to be again permitted TO prove the adultery
before that tribunal. II he successfully proved his
injury those three occasions, he was then allowed
to receive divorce r'ncnl9 matr.m4nt. WITH re-
would be aware that the rule at present was that for
simple adultery the part Of the husband, the wife
| was not entitled TO divorce, but the House OF Lords
had established the practice that wife was entitled
| 10 a divorce aganst her husband If she could prove
that his adultery asO incestuous that the adu
terry had been attended with such aggravated circum
stances rendered it utterly impossible that the wife
| could be expected 10 live again with her husband.
| These were the rules established by the House of
Lords and acted upon by that tribunal, which formed
a. present the law Of div administered by the
Hiih Court of Parliament 1t was the object of the
| blll which he now submitted to the House 10
BODY that law There was particular only in which
tie bill went beyond the present law in favor Of the
injured woman and that was in cases of adultery at
tended with malicious deserOn. In all other respects
the bill adhered to what had long been the unver-
ssly understood rule for the administration of justice
in England with regard to divorces. That being the
state Of the care, far the bill was concerned he
thought the House would agree that it contained
nothing more than the expression OF the existing Law
i .nd nlan for transferring the administra-