New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-07-16


Those persons who, on religious and moral
grounds made so Jealous an opposition to the late
English Divorce act, appear to watch with good
eeal of Jealousy the proceedings Of the Court estao
lisbed under il. Lord :desdae referred the other
dss in the House of Lords to the fact that, from
the newspaper reports of its proceedings, it
appeared that the day before nine petitions for
divorce had been granted by that Court. In these
cases there was no opposition, and strong fears
were expressed BY his Lordship that there might
be collision in some of them, and the Court thus
be turned-contrary to the intent of Parliament IN
its creation aud against the promises OF its sup
porters in that body-into Continuance Tor dis
solving the bond of matrmony by the mutual con-
sent of the parties. He thought the Court could
hardly have adopted those guards against COLLISION
which, when marriages were only dissoluble BY act
of Parliament, had been considered so essential.
Lord Campbell insisted in reply that every one OF
the ca,es 10 which reference had been made, had
been fully sifted and that there not the slightest
suspicion of collision in any Of them. AZ to the
punber of cases and the press Of business before
the Court, Lord Cranworth called attention to the
fct that the court at the moment Of its institution.
had been obliged to encounter long accumulation
of cases during past years on the part ofpersons
who had not been rich enough to obtain divorce
under the old sys!sm. To suggestion of Lord
Crews that there might be cases in which it would
be for the interest of apsrtes to deceive the Court
Lord Campbell replied that most Of the cases just
now in question were cases of bigamy.
There the mstter dropped for the moment but
few days after Lord Redesdale called it up again.
He had heard, he said since his former reference to
the subject, very serious objections to the manner
in which the Court dealt with unopposed cases.
On the occasion referred to, nine unopposed cases
had been disposed of in one day, one of which
occupied the Court only eleven minutes. With
that style of conducting business, he was convinced
that proper precautions against collision could not
be taken. 1t was no answer to be told, as he had
been, that most Of the in question were cases
of bigamy on the part of the husband. The mis-
conduct Of the wife in any one Of them might have
led the husband to commit bigamy, nor was he
aware of any cases are likely to give rise to .
inst suspicion OF colluiion than those in which big
amy was charged. If the Court of Divorce was
to gain the respect of the public, it must exercise
more caution in the treatment of those uneppOsed
caaes. which be trusted would receive more care
for the future.
Lord Campbell, in reply, expressed his astonish-
ment and indignation at this impeachment of the
conduct Of the judges who sat in the Court of Di-
vorce. He thought it rash and l-sdvised. He
bad himself the honor to be ono Of the judges Of
that Court. He had presided in it for several days,
and he could say that no causes upon which be h.d
ever sat had been more deliberately considered
than those which came before that Court In
Dearly all the cases referred to, the parties had
been living separate for many years, and there Vas
no possibility of collision. The Bishop OF Oxford,
however, supported Lord Redesdale, - only having
spoken out what were the feelings Of great body
Of personr. When nine uDOpposed cases and one
contested case were disposed of in one day. just a.
matters were disposed of at petty sessions, those
who still believed in the sacrednem Of marriage
Gods ordinance, whether or not they hold it dis
selube for great ofenses, could not avoid looking
with great apprehension at the rapidty with which
those divorces were given. In calling attention to
tie subject, Lord Redesdale had not impugned any
particular judgment-he had simply expressed TIE
feeling Of the great mass Of thinking and religious
persons.
Lord Cranworth replied that dispatch, in Itself
considered, was a good thing. He denied that
u der the Old method Of proceeding BY act Of Par.
lament there had been any greater precautions
ssa;nst COLLISION than under the Few one. In the
ecclesiastical court, there had been DO SAFE guards
whatever, and the action for criminal conversation
had been sboli,hed expressly because it was one
aided proceeding. In fact tie zeal ground Of CON-
pIant seemed to b that go many divorces had been
srM.td, but shat was natural consequence Of the
| loIg accumulation Of cases.