The Marriage and Divorce Bill.

August,

"The policeman proved a portion of the as

sault.

divorce will henceforth be obtained; the process being shorter, easier, less costly, and freed from the necessity of that revolt-ble condition. He wished to maintain his wife ing abomination, the action for crim. con. and family in credit and respectability; but she "The defendant said, that his was a most pitia-. For these things we must be thankful. We was so inveterate a drunkard, that she was not do not say that there will not yet remain sober one day in a week. He entreated the mamany defects and shortcomings in the law, gistrate to send to his home, and he would find and that many cases of extreme hardship, that chairs, tables, cups and saucers, and everywhich the Act cannot reach, will not con- thing he had possessed, had been disposed of by tinually be presented to us. had to replace it with a new one. But we must his wife to procure drink. Whenever he took dering a sovereign which he gave her for the off a dirty shirt she immediately sold it, and he family, she came to him for 6d. to buy bread, After squanand he had no sooner given it to one of the children, when she attempted to take it away from him to get more gin with, when, maddened by her disgraceful conduct, he forgot himself and struck her.

be content to get all reform by instalments, and must not complain because a good thing is not so good as we might desire to have it. It has been so generally assumed that the intent of the bill is to afford greater protection to women, that little or nothing has been said about the case of the husband, and nothing has been done (except, as we have said, by simplifying the procedure) to give him greater facility of ridding himself of a bad wife. Yet there are such things as bad wives, and a wife may be very bad who yet is not convicted of adultery. Lechery may not be her besetting infirmity. She may be neither tempting nor tempted. But a woman may effectually ruin and disgrace her husband without breaking the seventh commandment. drunkard, a brawler, a thief, a blasphemer. She may be a She may corrupt his children; she may make his house a hell; she may sell his goods, his chattels, the very implements of his craft, to buy drink withal, and yet she must still be his wife. When we spoke of this, on a former occasion, we derived an illustration from fictitious literature. The case was that of Stephen Blackpool, in Charles Dickens's Hard Times. But whilst this article has been growing under our pen, the truthful annals of the Police Courts have fortuitously afforded us as striking an example as any that fiction could invent for a purpose of its own. painful story entire with the comments of We give the the sitting magistrate :

noisy interruption had been ordered to leave the court, was recalled by the magistrate, but was Complainant, who in consequence of her found in a public house in the neighbourhood, instead of remaining in attendance in the waitingroom. She coolly admitted that she got drunk sometimes.

"It was proved by the police-sheet she was frequently seen in a state of intoxication, but was sober on Tuesday night.

The

present defective state of the law did not enable ficulty in knowing how to act in this case. "Mr. Arnold confessed that he had great difpoor persons to obtain a separation, which could be done by the rich, or the defendant would certainly be entitled to be removed from the society of such a woman as the complainant, and she her misconduct. Until some power was given to from his violence, provoked, as it might be, by magistrates, or other tribunals, to separate persons in the humbler walks of life, there was no chance of putting an end to such cases as the present, which sooner or later terminated in fatal results.

"Defendant was ordered to find bail till the police had made some inquiries which the magistrate directed."

case as this, a separation is obtainable even It will be said, perhaps, that in such a by a poor man. Let it be granted that, if the Lord Chancellor's bill becomes the law "WESTMINSTER.-On Wednesday last Charles of the land, and the Court which is to do Cannon, a very respectable-looking middle-aged the work of the doomed Ecclesiastical man, described as a law writer, was charged with Courts exacts no large money-payments having violently assaulted Ann, his wife, a woman from the poor man or the poor woman, whose slatternly and dissipated appearance, un- that a "judicial separation" might be improved by a severe black-eye, denoted a person decreed; but what would be the result?

commonly addicted to drink.

Complainant said, that she had been married to the defendant upwards of twenty years. On the previous night she was with her husband in Princes Street, Westminster, when he gave their little boy 6d. to buy some bread with; but, as she did not exactly want bread at that moment, she stooped to take it away from the child, when her husband struck her a blow on the eye with his stick, which knocked her down, and he then kicked her. He had fractured two or three of her ribs some weeks ago.

The Court would not leave the wretched woman to starve, and would, we presume, decree alimony to her. The husband would be left without a help-mate for himself, or a mother for his children (practically he has long been without both), and yet he is not permitted, by the law, to take to himself another partner. He may expel the drunkard from his house, but he cannot release himself from his wife. He can form, hon

estly, no new connection. In this emergen-judgment, the party complaining shall make cy, unless he be a man of rare principle and out a prima facie case for relief, to remit an self-denial, like Stephen Blackpool in the information on oath, with the disposition of story, he takes to himself another companion, without the consent of the Church; or else calls in the aid of the Church, and commits bigamy with scarcely a pang of con

science.

But, after all, whatever may be conceded for the sake of argument, it really matters very little to the poor man what is the state of the law, if, by reason of its costliness, it is not within his reach. Beset as is this question of divorce with doubts and difficulties, many as are the conflicting opinions, there is one point at which all consent to meet; all willingly admit that divorce is not for the rich alone, but, in certain cases, an act of justice to which rich and poor have an equal right. A good wife is a greater blessing, a bad wife is a greater curse, to the poor man than to the rich. Every one says that the poor ought to have the same facilities as the rich for getting rid of a bad wife. But will these facilities be granted to the poor man with the alteration of the law? There are those who think that there is no prospect of this, so long as it is necessary in all cases, either of separation or dissolution of marriage, to appeal to a special Court, and that the ordinary judicial tribunals of the country should be competent to do all that is required.

witnesses to the Court of Divorce; and that thereupon the Court shall, if it think fit, order the complainant to proceed in the usual way; but in forma pauperes." A further suggestion respecting this matter is also worthy of consideration. It is "that the Court of Divorce should be empowered to appoint a salaried solicitor, by whom all cases transmitted by magistrates should be conducted, and to whom the cases of other petitioners should be referred for inquiry, on its being suggested that they had no means of meeting the necessary expenses of having their complaints heard,' to the end that the solicitor of the Court might also conduct. such other cases, if it should appear to be fit and proper; and, further, that the Court' should appoint a salaried barrister to act as counsel in the same cases. Every petition presented by a husband praying for the dissolution of marriage, should be served on the accused adulterer, with liberty to appear and defend himself."

There are excellent people, especially in the English Church, with a profound horror of "easy divorce." The debates on the Chancellor's bill, in the House of Lords, have evinced the alarm not merely of the bishops respecting the proposed innovation, by which the dissolution of marriage_beWe are not surprised, however, that comes a law of the land; and many Engthere should be considerable jealousy on this lish clergymen are eagerly protesting score. The putting asunder of man and wife, against being compelled to perform the "whom God has joined," is held to be ceremony of marriage over persons who a very solemn matter; and there are come to the altar simply by right of divorce many in England who have reconciled that is, by right of adultery. Nay, at one themselves to the proposed changes in the law, only in consideration of the extreme dignity and gravity of the contemplated tribunal. And, considering the great conflict of opinion regarding many points of this great question of divorce, we must be content, in the present state of affairs, with some compromises. We think the case is very fairly met by the author of the "Review of the Divorce Bill of 1856," who has touched upon this important matter; and suggested a practical remedy for the admitted evil of the unequal operation of the law. "In order," he says, to exempt this branch of jurisprudence from the oft-repeated slur, that there is law for the rich, but none for the poor, it is proposed that, in all cases arising in humble life, and where the parties are poor, it shall be competent to a stipendiary magistrate, and to a municipal or other justice of the peace, to hear the complaint, and to summon the alleged delinquent before him; and if, in his

66

time they went even further than this; and an attempt was made to obtain a clause in the bill, exonerating the clergy from the necessity of solemnizing marriage over any divorced person-guilty or innocent-upon the ground that the marriage tie is scripturally indissoluble. This was eminently unsuccessful. If the clergy are entitled to this exemption now, they have always been entitled to it. For marriage, though not solu. ble by the law of the land, has hitherto been soluble by the Legislature; and it surely matters not, in a scriptural view of the case, whether man or wife are put asunder by the Court of Divorce or the House of Lords. Few, indeed, could see the justice of depriving the injured person of the benefit of clergy, on his entering into new matrimonial relations, which might, in every respect, be as pure and sacred as any that ever claimed the offices of the Church. But, with respect to the marriage of adulterers, the case was different; and may contended that such per

The Marriage and Divorce Bill.

August,

other remonstrances, to compel the clergy to marry adulterous divorcees, the members. of the Lower House will not interfere in behalf of the scandalized ecclesiastics. But we are not by any means sure that this will

sons ought to be contented with the legal contract made before a registrar, which is as binding as the religious ceremony. An attempt was subsequently made, by Lord Redesdale, to carry through the House of Lords a bill, enacting that the marriage of be the result. The House of Commons is persons who had been divorced on account just now in the right frame of mind to reof their own adultery should take place at a taliate upon the Upper House, especially registry office. The Archbishop of Canter- upon a point of conscience. The Lords havbury, who, throughout the discussions on the ing rejected the Oaths Bill of the Commons, Divorce Bill, has set an example of toler- the Commons are naturally predisposed to ance and moderation to many of his Episco- reject a Bill sent down to them by the pal brethren, put the case of the clergy in Lords. They have such a Bill, full of dethe only light in which it can command our bateable points, in the Divorce Bill; and if sympathies, when he said that "it became the issue be tried this Session (which, as we much stronger by the nature of the marriage write, appears to be extremely doubtful), service." "He was unwilling to allude we should, in no measure, be surprised if more particularly to that service; but their the Commons rejected the Divorce Bill of Lordships would remember that it assumed, the Lords, or at all events, of some of its in solemn terms, the Divine approval of the most important provisions. It is said that marriage, and that it was divinely ordained. the legal element will be arraigned against It was true that charity hopeth all things; it in the Commons, as was the Ecclesiastical but it passed even the bounds of charity to in the Lords. pronounce, ex cathedra, the Divine approval of a marriage which had its origin in a tending our attempts to reform the laws of There seems, indeed, to be a fatality atguilty passion, and was brought about by a marriage and divorce. Much was thought, heinous crime. For these reasons, he trust- said, and written upon the subject in 1856. ed that the consciences of the clergy might The Legislature was not inactive, but the not suffer under this trouble, but that, either year produced no legislation. Much alreathrough this present bill, or in some future dy has been said, thought, and written on clause of the Marriage and Divorce Bill, a the subject in 1857, but we are beginning remedy would be found." The Lords, how-to apprehend that this year, like its predeever, were not inclined to find a remedy, and Lord Redesdale's bill was thrown out by a large majority.

We confess that we are sorry for this, and for more reasons than one. scruples of conscience, and we can readily We respect all believe that many clergymen of the Church of England, considering the terms of the service which they are called upon to perform over all persons thus admitted into the holy" bonds of wedlock, may feel their consciences outraged by the compulsory performance of the ceremony over persons brought together primarily by guilt; but we lament it still more, because it will turn the hearts of many against a measure, which, but for this, they might have approved and supported. A Bill intended to confer, and actually conferring, substantial benefits upon one class of persons, should not inflict injury upon another. There are difficulties and delicacies enough necessarily involved in this question of divorce, and it is a grievous pity, therefore, to encumber it with any extraneous embarrassments. It may appear, prima facie, that if the House of Lords, the members of which (the bench of bishops included) are ordinarily more encumbered with scruples of conscience than the Commons, consent, in spite of Episcopal and

cessor, will witness no specific legislation. If this be the case, we shall lament that the comprehensive a character. There are parts Bill sent down from the Lords was of so rate Act, would in all probability, escape of it, and important parts, which, in a sepaunquestioned. The matter of judicial separation, and the protection of the earnings of married women, are altogether distinct from those of the dissolution of marriage and the re-marriage of adulterers. But there is always some fear in these complications, that one part of a mixed measure will bring discredit on another, and the whole will be involved in indiscriminate ruin on account of the defects of a part.

with the Bill as it has been sent down, really
We admit that we are well contented
amended, to the House of Commons. It is
capable of improvement, but still we cannot
but rejoice in the prospect of so large a
measure of social reform.
the apprehensions of those who believe that
We cannot share
the increased facilities for the dissolution of
marriage afforded by the Bill, will have the
effect of " unhinging the domestic relations."
Nothing, indeed, can be more preposterous
than the idea that married people will, if the
Bill be passed, live in a state of perpetual
anxiety to take advantage of its provisions.

Judging by present appearances, we believe that there is a prospect of this longpending, well-considered, and much-discussed question being settled before the close of the session. The second reading of the bill was moved in the House of Commons on the 24th of July, when Mr. Henley made a futile attempt to cause the post

that the House required more time to form
a deliberate opinion on so grave a question.
Of the gravity of the question there can be
no doubt. But as no subject, during the
last two years, has been more prominently
before the country than this, we conceive
that, if the House has not yet had time to
consider it, there is little chance of its being
sufficiently instructed at the end of another
session. The House itself was of this opinion,
and Mr. Henley's proposal was rejected by
a large majority. The Commons, indeed, in
this instance had an advantage, rarely en-
joyed by that body, in the foregone discus-
sions of the Lords-"repeated and elaborate
discussions" (to use the words of the Soli-
citor-General), "which were shared in by
the most eminent lawyers in England, in
which their Lordships had the assistance of
Bishops of the Church, and which followed
upon the report of at least one Commis-
sion." The postponement of the measure
last year was a disappointment to many; a
second postponement would be a disappoint-
ment to many more. If
the bill, as there is
now every reason to anticipate, be carried
through before the rising of the Parliament,
the first session of the new House of Com-
mons will be distinguished by at least one
beneficent measure.

The fact is, such is the perversity of human nature, that people are seldom much inclined to do what they may do every day of the week. How many Londoners ever visit the tower, ascend the monument, or explore Westminster Abbey? If you want a man (we include both sexes in the word) not to do a thing, let him know that he may do it. It is after forbidden things that we hanker-ponement of its consideration, on the ground distance lends enchantment to the view difficulty enhances the ardour of the pursuit. But there is another and more amiable view of the case. We cannot state it better than in the words of the intelligent writer, whose pamphlet is before us-"There need be no apprehension," he says, "that a Court of Divorce would be inundated with the complaints of wives, if it were open to them. The knowledge that a law was in existence enabling a wife to apply for divorce-either à menså et thoro, or à vinculo matrimonii, in case of extremity-would shed a wholesome influence over the minds of husbands disposed to err, or who had entered on the paths of error. The natural love of home-the welfare of a family-the dislike of publicity-the dread of a worse future-and the clinging of a mother to the father of her children, even through evil repute, would go far, as those amiable feelings always have gone, to encourage forbearance, to suggest mild remonstance, and to cherish the still-lingering hope of better days." The poor creatures, indeed, hope on against hope, make excuses as long as they can, and flatter themselves that is only a temporary aberration, and that the wanderer will return again to the ark of conjugal love and fidelity. And in the case of the offended husband, there are other considerations to check any very strong desire publicly to expose the guilt of his wife. He cannot do so without bringing at least some conventional disgrace upon himself, and, moreover, he will seldom be able to appear in Court with clean hands. But there is little need of speculation on these points, when we have the practical evidence afforded by the records of our own Scotch courts. The statistics of Divorce in Scotland, as cited in a former article, show how little there is really to be apprehended from any relaxation of the law in England. There is, indeed, no fear of any but extreme cases being brought before the Court of Divorce-cases in which it would be grievous cruelty to throw difficulties in the way of dissolution of marriage-6. cases which cry out piteously for the saving hand of the law. Having, therefore, no fear upon this point, and much hope upon many others, we earnestly hope that the Bill, as amended by the Lords, will become the law of the land.

ART. VIII.-1. Select Metrical Hymns and
Homilies of Ephraem Syrus. Translated,
with Notes, etc., by the Rev. HENRY
2. Sacred Latin Poetry, chiefly Lyrical;
BURGESS, Ph.D. 1853.
with Notes and Introduction. By the
Mediaval Hymns and Sequences. Trans-
Rev. R. C. TRENCH, M.A. 1849.
Hymnal Noted. 1851.
lated by the Rev. J. M. NEALE, M.A. 1851.

3.

4.

5. A Short Commentary on the Hymnal
Noted, from Ancient Sources, intended
The Ecclesiastical Poetry of the Middle
chiefly for the use of the Poor.
Ages. By the Rev. J. M. NEALE, M.A.
(forming part of the Encyclopædia Metro-
politana). 1852.

PSALMS and hymns and spiritual songs have
thrilled for ages through the Church on earth,