New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-21

ne Euss+, LtrGf DC Wl,cG 'o<s It' see'h
te :. expec,eo matt Commons Will attempt any
alterations, still leaves the English law 81 divorce
strange anomaly SUI gexeris in conflict with inc
simplest principles of equity and common sense
and unsupported by the provisions OF any o'her
code, Catholic, Protestant or pagan, savage or
civilized.
The provisions Of the English law on the subject
of divorce proceed on the assumpton-totaly con-
tradicted and set aside by the way in the provis'
ions of the English law regulating the 'olemnlza-
ton of marriases-that marriage is a sacred thing,
A matter of religion rather than Of contract, and
therefore not to be dissolved as other contracts are
upon grounds of equity and reason, taking into
conside ration the nature and objects Of the con-
tract, the conduct Of the parties and the nom
fulillment by one or both of the terms OF the
agreement, a. is the case with other contracts,
but solely on grounds recognized by the Scrip
lures as sufficient for the purpose. Inc Englsn
law of divorce further assumes-and In this respect
the new divorce bill proposes no alteratlon-
that by the tenor Of the Scriptures, or az least
of the New Testament, which is held, as to this
matter, as of superior authority, adultery Is tue
only cause sufficient to justify divorce. BY the
old law it is necessary to begin by establishing tne
fact of adultery by suit for damages brought oy
the injured husband in the Common Law Courts,
and tried by jury. Ajudgment for damages hav-
inc been obtained the fact of adultery is considered
az established and, based on this fact, an act OF
Parliament may be obtained dissolvipg the marriage.
But TO this method Of procedure several objec-
tions are taken. The oblieins the husband VINO
seeks divorce to subject himself to the scandal
and Disgrace attending the suit for damages is the
first. Secondly comes the fact that this action may
be used, and, no doubt constantly is used for pur-
poses of collision; the character OF woman, I'M
represented before the court and left without
defender and without remedy, being at any time
exposed to be blasted and herself to be stripped,
in consequence, of her position and rights as wife,
BY means of suit between her husband and third
party in which she has no right to intervene nor
any opportunity to be heard Third the enormous
expense of obtaining special act OF Parliament,
which, in fact, confines the luxury of divorce to the
very rich alone.
The proposed act does away with these objec-
TONS According to its provisions, suits for divorce
NAV be instituted in the Courts aud on proof OF
adultery those Courts have power to dissolve the
marriage. The action for damages is abolished,
the Courts instead, while pronOuncing sentence OF
divorce, being authorized at the same time to inlct
a fine on the paramour. But if this change brings
divorce on the ground of adultery within the reach
of the great body of the citizens, and If 1t protects
the wife against being concluded to her utter ruin
by suit, perhaps collusve one, to which she Is
not party and in which she could not be heard,
vet the new bill as we have already observed, still
leaves the English law Of divorce strange, and 1t
must be confessed, most dissraceful anomaly.
While adultery is singled out as the only ground
sufficient to Justify divorce and is by that very
fact stipmatized as the most atrocious and wicked
Of all invasons of a mans marital rights-and,
considering the peculiar and sacred character which
the English law ascribes to marriage, we might say
of mans rights in general-yet, strange 70
cay, the English law does not now regard, and will
not under the new provisions regard, shls high
banded act in the light of crime, nor provide any
criminal process for the punishment of the adult
erer, BY the old law he might be sued for such
damages as Jury might see fit to award. BY tho
new. law he may be fined by the Court, and of
course, if rich, may feel himself at liberty, 50 far
as the fear of punishment goes, to commit as many
adulteries as he pleases.
This strange anomaly in the English lew regard
ing adultery, from our point Of view, 10 the most
criminal of acts, and at the same time refusing to
treat it as crime is one Of the results Of that
great distinction of ranks which has ever existed
in England, and which still forms the basis Of the
EDelish social fabric. The new DiEOres Law
gives, indeed to poor husbands the chance of get
ting rid of their adulterOus wives hitherto limited
to rich ones; but the rich ones still preserve the
extra privilege of themselves committing. adultery
ct pleasure, without any fear Of legal eonse-
1uences.
For the new act, like the old law. still limits the
light Of divorce to the husband. The woman has
no means Of escaping from her husband, 10 matter
bow many adulteries he may commit, The En-
glish husband still enjoys under the new law, as
under the old, the privilege uhch many English
husbands Of rank ard station, and of what is called
do not hesitate to exereise--the
privilege of living n the moot open and notorious
adultery and eyer>Of bring ING has mistress into the
fSmily residence, insulting his wife by her pres
enee there, and if she protests against it, CON-
pelliDg her by lows to submit Such is precisely
the degree Of civilization and Of regards to the
rights and happiness Of woman to which sancti-
monious England, with, the ssdess cant of hex
Bishops and her Clergy Of all ssets, about the 70
ligious san&ity of marriage las attained in this
year of greae III eighteen hundred and ffty.seven.
The ~ T. Times--whicA is now the Buchanan.