New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-24


singular snschronism in ascribiug to much earlier
period a milder punishment substituted for tnat
of death 90 late a. 1894. This law provided
that "the guilty parties should be Get upon the
.caIlows with rope about their necks, the other
" end 70 be cast over the gallows and, in the way
"from thence TO the common JAIL to be severely
"whipped not exceeding forty stripes, and forever
"sfter to wear capital A of two inches long and
proportional bigness, cut out in cloth OF con-
"trary color to their clothes, and sewed upon their
upper garments, on the outside OF their arm, or
"on their back in open view''-the culprits, when
ever found abroad without this badge to be whipped
fifteen stripes. The sitting on the gallows the
whipping and the letter A. have BY later enact
ments been dispensed with, but the spirit Of the
law is still preserved in all the New England codes,
by which adultery is made Statesprison ofense
On the other hand, in England, adultery is not
punished a. crime; but this omission-which The
London Times seems inclined to boast of Is proof
Of the freedom Of the English people, from Puritan
fanatcism, and which it gives ts aid to prOOng-is
not the result Of any reason sentiment or delbera.
ton, but is of those merely accidental deAcien.
ces of which the English code il go full. The
Catholic clergy of old times, having seized upon
marriage as falling particularly within their ju-
risdictiOn, naturally enough also took upon them
selves the punishment Of adultery as breach of
marriage duty. The penance and confession be.
fore the face of the congregation, to which the
guilty parties were subjected, were no traing mat
ter, the whole proceedings being much in the spirit
of the Massachusetts, act above cited. But, with
the growth and spread of the spirit of Puritanism
aud independency, the Church tribunals so far as
related to the preservation of discipline fell into
contempt and allegiance, till they gradually came
to serve no other purpose, so far as this matter
was concerned, except, by nominal existence
to stand in the way of CHASING adultery among
secular crimes, to be dealt with by the ordinary
tribunals-the culprit, through this division
and conflict of authority, slipping, as it were
through the fingers Of justine. The new divorce
bill, in its original draft proposed to remedy this
defect in the English, law by giving to the Courts
which it vests with the power of granting divorces
for adultery only the power to punish the guilty
parties by fine and imprisonment But the power
to imprison was struck cut by their lordships, on
the motion of Peer who argued, without drawing
out any reply, that, though adultery was sin,
looked at in religious point of view, and in
secular point of view civil injury to the husband
for which he might well have his action yet it was
piece of absurdity and folly to punish it as
crime, thus attempting to promote chastity by
coppulsion-very much the same argument, it is
to be observed, 80 often urged against our liquor
laws. Now we can we'll understand how, from
certain point Of view, the subject may be looked at
in this light Very probably, the noble lord who
made this argument and many Of the noble lords
who sustained it by their votes, whatever their
opinions might be about &" the elastic and transtory
"uniOns Of Northern Germany" would have con-
fessed, bad they made clean breast of it, that
there were other I" elastic and transitory unions"
not so very bad in their eyes, and that in speaking
of adultery as a ain and civil injury they spoke
not for themselves, but merely made decent con-
cession to prevailing preudices. Yet even on that
ground, consistency and common sense would seem
to have required of them to have conceded little
more. So long as there is such prejudice against
adultery no matter whether well or i'll founded, as
to cauie to regard it, in its bearing upon the
innocent husband or wife. as one Of the greatest
wrongs that can be sufored, what more reasonable
than that it should be treated and punished as q
crime!
Another noticeable reason was also urged for not
giving the Court authority to punish adultery with
imprisonment Those same legislators, who refused
to extend to innocent women the same privilege of
divorce which they allowed to men, certainly
eynced great degree Of tenderness for frail fe-
males since they thought it hard that the aduteress,
beside being divorced, should also be imprisoned,
while they seemed to think that English husbands
were 60 msgnanimous that rather than subject their
adulterous spouses to such catastrophe they would
omit to sue for divorce. This difficulty might,
however, have been avoided by combining the PEN
atty of imprisonment to the adulterer, considering
that the woman had been punished enough in los
ing her position as wife. But the noble lords
preferred to strike out the penalty altogether,
leaving the adulterer subject only to the costs of
the proceeding, and such fine as the Court might |
zee fit to impose. As the new bill abOlishes the |
action for damages, the adulterer must be consid'
cred on the whole q decided gamer by the
cbapge--a fire by Court being less formidable
thing than Jurys assessment of damages
There is, 90 far as we are aware, only one pausl.
bic objection to the punishment of adultery asa
criminal offense. Ought family to be exposed to
the danger of being broken up and one of the mem
bers of it punished, for oiense which the party
or parties most injured had forgiven or preferred to
overlook Whatever degree of weight might be
allowed to this interrogatory, it would be easy
apouoh IN meet H. In indictments for assault and