The Express. — London, England, 1857-08-01 00:00:00

eel Ih• Were bed milli, Iwo of doir mos ' W Miabirree eamentelW of the word w sped wog 1 oletwall, it was owed, of kW mode ems/woods with the i lewd the Jews, but had so boring upon Christian.. But • when kis ban. end hens/ hind talked of dierrepant•ies , Winn them whir held that the lot lit wtrrpprt tism of tat I Imo w. that white mode merrier briii he I sit him te cemaider the dieeessiume batons thin who sup , peeled the enateary view. Han woe • bill yealbssing le red I en the authority al amtpure. Tete liwaigodsoms MI 'pekoe to hem of It, his how. _end hem. Bleed the Attar. ney-Ormand and the bow. member fee Ilerdsedeldre. The has. moat. for.Hertstuemited his argeissftt en the vine in the bth of Matthew; but the Atrantspeinaral threw that TIM overboard aluitetber. His boo. and learned friend used words to remarkable that be must guide them : l• The argumeat mu, that as the easoption in St. Matthew was not found in St. Meek, or is St. Luke, that therefore the Me is Sr. Mink mid St. Luke be taken to be the binding rule. But it never Seamed to strike thecae who advanced this argareset that the remonable dedoetion way thet our Saviour, in addreosieg those who were conversant with and were bound by the Jewish law, thuueht it rapid-ite is one fteee to my fist he excepted the epee wition w.xe provided he by the Jewieh law, but thought it unnocessary in soother iftes to introduce the exceptional case, hemmer adultery in is Jewish law we, not • eve.) for divorce, but was =ldea le etinktil psidgtment. Our Saviour wee con es*. dose thlop which were divorces among the Setift s iftli adniefty was net a case ter divorce according Y As haft* law bet for criminal punishment.' The heastsamkge kw Mertihrildre maid, on the contrary, thalami's* , is IL Matthew didasnstitute • teal exception, seid *A the sdelsoy osolissol Is the eons did constitute ftweftli fir Modem, appliode to us for • pnredent, but debessol ismsed Alsagggruggona in Sat cootradietion to ask Mow the oleo eorbssed, ad endeavoured to show Wel beeelf est Wee ssq . borfog oo the quottion, because Illowsossor 1161111v: s eilleltery seennting to the law of Iftelftile we set 4 but by rsp.tal puniettment. So MA foe do barmy le saiptural interpretation of the fair ramie ohs Wen vtured to speak in support of de woe we to be dissembled dim much diversity of aphis peeelled es to the Me eenetrinalori of Seripture aelieldegspatbis quad= Se= thought thoprohiboioo of dire es—that was divorce =vying with it the power of re astedift-t-orea absolute ; earn considered there was • w ithin in Ikripture for vesuirriage after divorce in the ease et eiislikety alms, bat limited to the innocent man, and net estandsd to the forwent Immo. That he believed was as not omeisst _asides is the elsoch after the doctrine of isdheelebilk. There were ethers who went further than thie, and etne the eat et where to both the innocent Eat and the iillseed MOM. Again, there were mate orbs, el kelptetel Illelmilty, gave the liberty of eftftftlft lithoth partite ober divorce fur adultrry. There we sewer body of pereatim—cord this was the view adopted ft Ifth beet& do—who gave It to both parties, whether Lessot te m i r stilty, provided there was no intermarrisge be tween the ty partim. There wee a sixth poesy that per =Mg Ifternianiages..• seventh that etnuidered the Sedelese pooled liberty of dn.= and re-marriage in ruse of entry, and she is owe of desertion. Uot the great = 111 : 4 1=1; bi S i ,:n7ture th t• Z . hl'ilt given " the is m kerbsll dillephel NMI advocates. He ditl . not soy they wee NI, ti Mon sopywid by sound argument ; bat the dare 11111 ens that it agreed with neither of the aftes. Q.er e hew, an/ • WO.) There wee, he believed, a Win awsipet awls sehtious people that our marriage law ea ems tee tight; int by relaxing it in the manner lee mod they MOM melte itsquars intik licriptnre ; and thetted pie send be estellimbed it was ha thet it would be einerinive ergemeent dm the M. But se sae could show het it viewed with Scripts* by any eseereetke that meld be pee upon it. Whet did the WI de? It re lieved-1s moral go 'peak el It, he werrook though the mild nee mew Wm feehdal It pee relief le Ike Well le ere of the weewe's adultery, Ad it we FMK set O sae of the owes ethiltery, but of lbe moit's Wiwi year wry rare sad =altar eirenm ftweee, (Sew, Imo.) IA Ohm take the authority of Selptete to eves la that hem. The Attorney-General hod inked thew to *wee hie rosetruetion upon the con etheme of 17.000 elergysers. Let them see how his tern. eel breed Mead' • weeteween *Prod nub his hill. Hie bon. and boast friend threw emir the yens in Be. Mat thew, but head moiler he ids puree— that in which our Lad NW, "They tenth shall be ter Seek, whereupon they one se lame tire* bet ass Ma." And his bun. and breed Heel aid that by the feet of adultery the bond wee beehei. Wee that the wow ef tie ta . vipture ? No. it was ea infiltory moss pat ea the wards by hie hon. and leaned kined—e aestruedas pot ides thou {Artist. by Archbishop Cirmirjimil which bad hos to them an advocate, bat Which use nom= se d id by soy weight of authority, And whirl it war against there whet would promo ups blo hoe rod hood friend for farther cheerio in the law of Ode bill pont It was • two ry arbltro role, = if am the maims that the bond of marriage watt so dog by adultery that it existed no longer. Them were many mesas far mom to al to the greet obliga ti= ef marriage, se disease, idiocy. crime invod etag hapelanowat for Ms, and which, if the le and were dmaakilbi ogle Its weed as • mason for divot,. but that was not whet he would dwell upon at pee.ent. His hon. and leatmed fried mid by theism of the adultery air userristre bood was deanyed, and then he &eked the how. in pam • bill under whisk shrikes Opt of every twenty wlelterere in the laud world be covered with ptrfect immunity. mew, bear.) The emarmoss majority of adultetke were admiewhe of men ; ' end laving isms that am adultery destroyed the merriage ' WA his hire. sad loosed friend itumedield, iftftemded • Mews te diellft* aft= entwifthrths of the tospritimem be W direct (Mew hew.) His bon. and Owed fnend ornamossi at easeddle oohs upon his was bin—(- hear" all iahhter)—da bsjewelled le new. &wiper* that mare lestellii eel emit oe odolasy, and sob proceeded to g. teempeleatileelew whet seenllwg to his ova Is similar eel of tweelywees We paths wen no elsd. Mier, beer ) barb or the nob is which Om bed by Attornay-Ciammal• and la which the bows to memo in user camlidiscia so implicit CI E le ant their conetruction on the enneeiene eV PI test i , , eta, If theT say it hi reintrary to their vows, OW le boob told to go and obey. (Hear. beer.) Na i l: IMO Weft Efteetinge wee dentroyel moo f tete by eon maw ; bow they could say to the wife, Mrs Weeeerial le le mated to your adulteroue husband. liettlineteellftheitmatid you to live with him." There was Illeelleepee Mess we =de of rousetruire.; Scripture and liehillioriamett—tbat he (Mr. Gladstone) did ant doe WOO Ilailliftg upon any arguinent, ingenious ur not helmlght tmeatruct from any V.V. The lights of tessedisef aah.joity, the lire of tho s e orbs fti • ellerillifteeildwil, hod immense weight, in hi. AIM bistros eel= of scripture] authority. The es/ honed sember for Dundalk had gives lie esw r ig We dee scriptural authority, which to wee .11. WS lle weer (though he had not, as his Dorm* ad Mewl Shed the Attontey.Genersl hod en taffiebeelehell cif Trent. ( 0 Hear, hear," and lits., ... ..... =in pint in the ease, they bad etbishon. and leveed friend the Attorney- Se woe • ho-t in himself. ("Hear," and =Uwe who pnived the lax interpretations from eel= wares 01' St. Matthew, the Attorney-Geneval IfteWasedenra. He (Mt. Glodstone) would however ven ts tepid oat this : that if they took the text of St. Mat thew se giving a limnse of marriage after adultery, they Wlinttbew in ronfliet on the point with the other ad IS. Paul. The Gospel of Sr. Matthew was Mat it elhe Wow, sad probably in Hebrew ; the Gospels d and IL Luke were written for fereigners and Moron wee too mum for raying that the Gospel of or known to the Otetiloo, and yet according to allibleadoetrise of the hen. member for Hertford, this wiellial Weil point in the Chri.tien law of marriage WINS night bedienilved for adoltery— a Moe important sew le ehe tepplleabon of Chrioisnity into the di...rdrtrd rtZtf la* ulna the reel dione of the se= was most as boil liners' from them for many generstions Wafter pedal/4 ft ftes—hat on the undemanding of ' le Aftempeweed • he 11. Mark that it woe not own gfteg lift banns i ty adireowd the Jew., who punished k whielly, they IS, Matthew in herminy with St. $0 ad St. Luke _who eibeeed th e Gentile, and for Months law. as a d ho the lon, would bare had no , =Thu Ember for Herta mid Mot the punishment ' or we Witted by the Isola law except the =few wee dbievered in floosie &bete. Tho hon. amber wee the lest that had ask eat discovery. If be would bet to the ehaprer of Doolooomory Outshine Wm ababojt I. wood re that Met podsinaset of death we le he iwewel ea lheloorwiwata we merely of a married Pima, le et two wow whit wee Winded. Ilittory, hitt* d od ffeafewl, owl We primitive thiligely teetimony of the Cftftlftheftweh, war vital in thin cow H. therefore humbly =did tlds as Me trus conoraceiss ef the verse of St. Our Leal war frisking te Ille Jet., end as the Jim% law provided! We pesfohowet et death in case of dye it am bopeeetble the one could new li immenimps deeleg the Mb of the prim I :Il i m. wiped to /Mem be made this preyselliss ,---,, Sat fee the lbw 300 yews we had ad $ NM* wilily al Memo with re-vastsikft• for soy= itowww Th ef e wed 11 the early shoe! was to i promo to ago, to on awe wheievw. Ili wo *rotten all the earl writers. so oar WA WOW =Goa wawa ; t hey had the Ow Of We emit; die Cleillea ode sad the efeelelle afar. The tpeelelle emen h ebbi wee the kw ef Me tier* WI If • alb owl ofirry goer , ow wow • elle ffilVier Itiraellay bl him le Depended hen the ebiesb. ?Ire sue Ileeemplos Is the writers of tbs tidy deo* Wik_ de seposall as opinion shirk wee tbm but alga 7.at baby that the loneent Itsdrodubsem with wee .."7 0 .4e r n t i ' m atIste b c =l le ',warty. Mier tr!reo•• NA la the of le=lw b r MM tow Olt the lessone Weida eta Wet dlvereel 117dal. V i Noway. Who the only Chrielins we to 4% r em llipomoll misty mew** wee held to be _ ;bib *On air Weed with the Waft wdely :1 1. 1 nosh SW a ere& nisei •_"' .• bath 411 is la seday ws o f Chrlibielly— ea t. et w ...es W Met he a/ t ou ted to hewer lb Wee. " ed the COMO' wee the nee pewerfad -._ll"o.lef lee leeleret Usisebtedly in Ilte wee • sad .... I ssas bole wlth wend le welt Imo greseset ' ? !Wawa* la lie earl; Wile la the the WWI= 411 = 111 P,.. ellehlhbal the Alban el - l ie Polled llowaat • lela=i gig i s i s hial e •kk es !.s . kresfin ; owl lie law NM „ az : Ow hollowlelft ef war*. il k es Wow" AM SW what Se orwallea awn h A dhelobllty. Ad Wee le Week rt. eel iteraei Mewl Sr I be led espoused ea eawast el We (Hr. Cledgestle) set having Heed la dale ages—(laughter)—and 110 kit the mod:nest the more a. awning from a oilman of such broad, straightforward view. aughter) —els diameter. like that which was formerly de. .alined as " readmit, aboortoistapies."—(laugtiter)— laid at be was satilleit to take nab amoug the "rubtili.vinti deed," he aced tidy say thd le me poriod of his life wail he able to WOO tie impriersewat be that art of sulitlety, but to fast be whiek le we kr Wes tie three years most closely as aseiell whit Mt be. swe hand tried. (Laughtrr.) boa. sad baud Mead MI won et the principles se the Iseaddlett, ewe he lid reed • pump which the hide aided as wowed Mn the Ildreadie Leek Set It was wet rata from the wok The Poketssitie was the drat the Wwelly opened the Ileathplen r L i r divorce srholole, end he wee ewe that Asa the hews found what as eitabli.hod on the Obeli( the Reformed* Lego they would be coed am how ad mitted that it hie dews pruteetant principles; foe it mita of dimes fer Ike se al: binds of offence. besides adultery, mid as k that se= im erorte thee the bid of We la ad bad although it% two puticulere it wee baler; M It wit violate the principle of equally baked the.d hat retained an ideality of rights between thaw. gad INNIVOIT it treated ailelkeey ea a capitol dims. Ile ham end hosed (timid wee damn of basin 16 MI es ea pedant_ priaolphe et the BAK - ram, id be bee get a me krortive Creamer tech pd. New he led the add ter Lrah who, though not without wee a zed a die awn ; but that any opinion of Areh ena mor, lOW se it wee in diffieult amid iketestiag tier, was to govern 'Ogler et this time at thy, was pe week= so extra yet that It seals ant to be peered wit era His bait. sod had hied had in his awed gives them a ninth beatiOle—(langhter)—hehedlaid it down that bird h the man QM gab hie trod it the received version—Quie)— tat fat Herd is the new tabs did not exude the tad **jailed.* dish 0.4 bee given hie • wq more, his in ail lemma Mid we not swami la giving Hem a aka beatitude, but he bed dm thew a new odds of faith, for lo aid OM elms tatialrint audios &II went together they well wet be "wag. (few, best.) Now, whether his be. sell leered kirwl we right ea not in obis that wbia as the pretwerd eibedbee west together they *OM net be wrong. the kW we that this wee a case in which the pro• teateat churches had net dose together • not one. ( 1 e Hear. be awl leseghter.) His hon. and c aned triad said that by the law tithe earth of England until the Nth eastury martisge ems able ; but he (Sir. Oladiffisee) did not know ea who aillwrity that sietuoption was founded. Hie be.. NW boast Mall nil that until the OP Polkualie ha the lea seamy, and all through the wigs et Ithelath. neeriese wee addable by the seeledeslied mud ; the it that wwe so it deterwid the[ adder of the ikeemstioa; but the Rot eedie tag= " never wankel the swami,/ et law, and It wee a del point for hi. law awl Mead Mead to show that Meares wee a great protestant gelled* at the law of Ilaglord la the tirme of Elisidietit. He lielieglit forward in proof el JO • how Salkeld, in which it was said that the amen were divorces i vincule astrkwail," end thwelbee I wee to he laded that there were Wirer "1 viwabdirkeril" before thelleforination ; but he (Mr. Giedeleme) weld meet that lute and random words Wm time. usempumled by no reference to any autho rity. ammi imply pout em and without value. On the contrary, be wild am ert the the practice In the time of Elimbeth did mot rummies dune at all, and of that be would gin a remarkable sod besatrovertibie evidence. He was about to quote true • book written by Mr. Francis Clarke, in 1596, a gentleman who wee the senior proctor in Doctors' Common,, who wee brought up in the study of the ecclesiastical law from his youth, mid who had practised it be 36 years. He hoped that it would be admitted that this wee • pretty good witness 14 tha practice in the time of Elisabeth, fur his etrrience ettended from IMO to 15911, one year before the canon t 4 Arebbishop Whit gift, since when It wee admitted that there had been no divorce "a rineulo matrimenii" in the Eccleeiaatical Court. What way said in that book t "Qootoria in Rh& Quod emate tangsates Matrimoniuni (4 Si Maritua, et Si Mutter) &farm in curb& in eladent specideatis •gendum ere in canal divortii rive mparationis r thoro et men.), Mama de jure OSSOeiee legit& mem rogni in Into parte snitch:4r, nee lice venom& in his earibus—re, er ropier edulterieni nee propter &relate., divortiatts out mparstie, ad Neuters contort. neptire viventibus prinribus maritio Tel coejugi. bus, quilt vincuitun matrinionii erne' ',fermi nee poem ab bowies diseolai Mai motto natutali— (cheers)— in cosset aententia in his ,asibus lab/ traitor her detour diet& N. et (scilicet parte* Man qui cupeunt divortium rations adulterii, ti mune fait in etituti propter adulterant, vet ratio& srtithe elle- gates et probate-) ' • rhino, UMW, Se mutt eobabitationeet orequionimeonjugslium seepeturioneramic et qtrusque dutcrint inri,rm reeonctliandue et SOU aliter suave alio ntodoarpouratue et di vortianstwe (*moque o n . admit titer ornittiturP hoe verbose diratiaree). &dent Atom judices &deer ad evitardea secandas tens semis. lima& priori bus omjegibus (good set edmodem cemainais), expresti inhi bre permute sewer, se convoleat ad alia vita demote tegument". run Utensil eme et tut, gent' Impel, nisi fuarint recoseillati, iseaesat. Et quoties do rquanindi nuptiis re• coedit mere summit Committer& Itords in Canals Hoer siestkii eel mum Judicibtm 'even-tide/4hr Cantuarter& Arebieplempi qurrelatur, delinquentee in hi. web& punier& et ceretruntur argue .b hojeommli trundle nape& (see prim eamanbiis adulteries) diratiantur et toparanter." (Hear, bear.) He would ',stun to my that there never woe more clear or convincing testimony on any point than tr.. So pouch fir the epirit of the Rath& Reformation and the metric. of the reign of Elitabetb with regard In divorce. In later time, there we. not no much stittnera in this reopen, fir in bad time. was made a bed butoutio n. tutu( which the bithnpa it the thumb fought stoutly, but in vain ; and at lenrth n bill we. brought in, in Lord 1)e Reis eue, a creature of Charlet 11. , and the Howe of Lords threnaerd the bill under the unennititutional difficulty of the perenal peewees of the governors. Since than the pretties had spnad, though, he wee glad to think, but slowly; far le Andy believed that there had not been a marked tandaney shown in the practice to eprend widely. It appeared by • tabular statement which ha had before him that in the reign of George 111., from the year 1760 to 1799 the somber of divorceei was 96 ; the ant 31 yeses dome to 1930 showed: divoreee ; and from that time down to 1866 the number wee 99. If it was con sidered how great had bees the extension of the wealthy clan in thin money to which alone divorce woe a pweihility. it most lea matter of eagratulation that the practice had *read no slowly. Although he hod treepamed so largely on tle patience of the boil.. h. must yet say a few words on the religious Fart of the question and something on the varied etre,. which were likely to be the result of thin measure. He felt, with Ida noble friend the member fee Leieesternhire, the Melanie and Injustice which would Le indicted on the clergy if this bill pained as it stood. He con ferred that he did not believe that the bowie would back the Attorney-Generel in this deaden of compelling the clergy to do an act amend which their conscience. sod their prin ciple* nrolted ; Lut if the boo.. should back the Attorney- General in thus compelling the clergy to the . pereirmanoe of • duty against s int they oon.ciervioualy end earneetly pm temeel, why then farewell to all peace within the church; nod hie noble sod kernel friend who came before the house muffin! jog hie glib doctrine of obedience to the law, would have done more to destroy the onion of the chord, than if hr hod voted with the hon. member for Mg field on every division againd every rrgium donum, or every grant fir mialaters' money. He profaned wean seek a limitation of conscience, and be would snort that if they end the laity were to have conscience% they most look on the church as being governed by nomething more Christian than that house. He protested against a doctrine so degrading se that the religion they profeased, in its spiritual matters and in the handling of in groat mysterie., was to be rut and carved at the vecch and pleasure of his noble and learned friend or of any majority of that bores whatever. It could not be expected that the law of relgion would be reelected in the country mike. it was respected Ly the house itself ; and he would boldly ask if it woo not ineomident with the reelect and reverence which every man must feel nese due to the revelation of God, th,t the will of a body so con e/Rated IA that house should be the rile drterminatton of all religious and spiritual matter. We might well take a Mein from heathenism in this respect ; for so great was the desire to secure en much se was pos sible the raped of the people for religion, and to Madan these of the belief that it wan • men creation of .tale-craft, that all memo were need to keep up • notion of diem revelation, and the divine Men were separated from the political offices in the state, because It wog known that it would be detrimental to ?elision, that its manna &add be regulated like the (concerns of earth, by randy metier laws. He did not deny the high functions of the House of Commons. That house might be • masinting pony to, and add ice authority to Whitlow regulation was into duosd into the noll• plen el the seats ; but neither the principles of law or re- Wee permitted them todo anything in the way of remodel- Ibist spiritual question.. One word on the great meld which was involved in this measure. He must my 1117sheileved that the bill committed a fatal error in the Wads which it shaped and directed it. enanmentn. But etc., 'nor of all was in its priociple, and the oiled It meat he land it irouLi have on the people of Tared. lio did set my whether the effect would be slow or sepia. bed_ that it might be slow. He did not matillirl.lllll i Mm atruilkariel of the Pieta ten of hie lea. awl hood Mond when be said, " Mama tetra muss issidwr it oohs r but it had occurred to hire that it wephile witer M the hot ebbe of society with regard is dimes belb in *awe and essetry. (Laughter.) Ifs weed lint be iii met inks a megSs . view of the condition slab tenany whit mord to the clan of dangerous min 7b isle of reigitutios hardly be sr ote,. in war taw, _• owl in mrsded ensues evil of that class -111111111111/, Imendlewees before nsarrisge, It was so preva lent Me le Ma and country as to humble tts to the dud elm we ouniisni with how little orientate our Christian eilleptime were elmented. But there wee a bright side of the findha; IN m regarded the lower elm. in Mb &wintry, osirsidally with toped to those wbo living out of London were moved from temptation, the observance of the mar eler tie a faithful in the highest degree. If it was Mee Set them wee a deplorable laxity of chastity before coupled with @triremes after marriage, that M U rail i tTa which retired explanation, mid an explanation emir*. he lamed the known indieselohility of marriage yrbrsf Marl—andel-cry man and wenn in and still more In Ireland, who entered Ye in mm edmin know that they were entering into a th eel an mcg n ltat was indissoluble. We had the wilinrlty of ; wo hod the authority of Milk lobo data the doctrine of the indissolubility of malinporill dates, who held that there wee nothing so innonoon es le Whig a min sad wawa tats vox Ulm lot anion vela total onion. In this eatantry tut ono. I bat been total, the marriage sun was a total gad skein° I elate—you entered en a new elate and were bound by i all its reletioes and obligations ; and now you were going to I Maim the gulf which Let hitherto Teen considenal itiathethie Lt.and yen were going to y to a woman " 1,41 dish ' ile m r l able ; you shall be divorced ; and nieLreg shell you to the man apinvt whom you bare ellethd; you may offend again; but your sin Audi be unpudona.de by him e lien *Lan you tied offended, though with his wb. .hi heart and soul he reign have dashed to &wen you." Them might perbspit be mime death as reseeded the principle el shutting the dour pooltmo, but there could be so doubt ea to the =of the ptineiple on which the . mania', law of tree founder'. The indis s olubility of English mar usgs woo ea idea that hod never been shaken in the English • mind; ad there never no. en Englishman of the lower or • middle elms who had known or newsiest] wirriege ea die- • seal& let the house then take care how they damaged the character of their countrymen. They knew what iicew • an dwelt in the Englishman ; but there was one Chnitea metnthat which had dwelt within him eine° England wee Engle d, and that wan the preservation of the marriage tie; Had there been eutlieient reason given for shaking :hem feel ing"? (Hier, heard Wei it certain that when one. they were shaken they would settle down again in the limits keyed for them by act of parliament ? You were introducing a eyeless which won perfectly novel to the great man of your country men, and which was known in no other country. The great Amin fichavoni stated that at the Reformative all protertant states had changed the law of marriage; but for 200 years after that there had been no change, became the ne former, led foundeel themselves on the dear view end memo of the scripture., and had limited thethelvm to cane of divorce v Rh remarriage fir adultery and desertion, for it WY the general opine . * of the reformers that demotion as well as adultery was a ground of divorce ; and this showed the arbiter) , principle of the plan they were now called on to adopt, which he believed was the first instalment of many theme, the Gist stage of a road of which they knew nothing cosset thee it wee different to that which our fore fathers bode, and which removed no from that path in which Chrlithmit7 bad plead us. Again repewiug hie Writhe fur the were eith which the how* had heard him, he would cowhide hy deelaring that he would reno this mea sure, berm= he believed it use not only retrograde in its character but full of dangerous insurgences to our mein system ; doubtful itit et-gaoled the conetruition of ecriptura, became it woe undoing what Chrinianity had dune for us, and bringing ns into • state of laxity with regard to marriage which Chrinisetity did not recognise; ho would nein it because it was desired by the people of this country — (bear, bear)—he objected to it because the proposal of his Lon, and learned fneod was unjust and harsh Mends the ministers of religion; its objected to it also on the other grounds which he had stated ; and lastly, because it Wild premed upon the huuse at a lime when It was impemittle to afford it adequate considertition, end en far WI in him for he would not tie reeponsible for any pert of a measure which he thought PO dangerous to the highest interests of the country. Sir G. GREY, after expressing his admiration of the ipeeeh of the right hen. gentleman, and his wish that it had been delivered on the previous evening, declann his intention of not entering largely on the scriptural pert of the question, believing, a Le did, that exercitatioas on doubtful parages of scripture tended rather to weaken than to eetabiish the authority of the scriptures, • He had considered the scriptural part of the quenion, and had no hesitation in saying that no binding of inflexible rule was laid down on the subject. Ile would, in the first place, notice whet his right hon. friend called the precipitate course of legislation 012 this matter. leaned of the subject having now been brought under the ronsideratim tit parietal:to for the first time, it hail been frequently Mortared in ono branch of the legislature, and commented on in various publications; and be thought the time had 'rived when, a bill having then sent down from the o th er home embodying the deli berate cum knows of that house, the omertunity should be taken of effuetiog what he rensidered a pelt iniprovement of the law. (Hear, hear.) Ile right hon. Mond bad isthmoid that the country did nut understand the question, and that he had morirod a petition from Cornwall founded on the suppention that a law was about to be pined under which divorces might be granted if people should quarrel. (Laughter.) Mr. GLADSTONE—It was not a petition. Sir O. GREY—Thou it was • letter from some correspow dent of the right bun. gentle:nee, who must have greatly in• lightened him as to the facts of the ram. (Laugher.) If the ei . rimpondente of hie right hoe. friend entertained these atoned views, he should deeply hare regretted the carrying of the prepention 'shah would have preiented the discus eine, which he trusted would dispel such an named Meehan. (Hear.) He had lietaned to the greater part of the spereh of he right hen. friend with the highest interne and admira tion, but with the wont unfeigned and urthotuadol ettonieh . meet. Hie right hie. friend treated the mermen as an in tended innovation on the law of England, never heard of until the worst time—afilnned the iudiaaoluWity of marriage, and coadrumed the bill as partial in its °pennon. Now he was rather surprimed to bear each arguments advanced by he right hon. friend. In the year , 1850, owing to the complaint* which had been mado of abeam and mandate connoted with the meting law end . practice of granting diet - eves, a mission wean appointed by . the crown, consisting of ',oilman of glint learning Auden . prince, to inquire into the law of divorce, and the monk lii , which divorces amid he obtained. That ainimi-vion pro . caned on the notorious fact l hot divorces went soteinable— , that the bier and prank*, of parliament senetiened divorces— , and their duly wee to inquire and normat the seethed by , which 'het end could be attained. 'Pie report of the. two. , Mien was prevented in Mr, awl in Mit Liod Aberdeen's . government, of which bit right. hon. friend was a thine ! reined member, introduced a bill in the stal4eit. (Ileer.) i That bill which was prevented to the Homo of Look by the . then Lord Cluneollor was entitled, " A Bill to transfer the , jurisdiction in matrimonial num' to the Court of Clenony I and to establish a Court of Divorce." (Ike, hear.) That WI . the reed a second tune and committed, and me abandoned in the middle of July, not berates it was too late to proceed '. with it, bit Mule the tenementary jurisdiction could net be carried along with it. Thst bill was isimatind in tut orie -1 ciples and in its meet important provider with the bill now . under discumint. (Cheers.) That bill propoed to ratablieth , a court of divorce, and provided that certain bets being ens . birthed, the court should pronounce a divers declesing the marriage to be diredved. (Cheers.) That wn prniselv , what WWI done by the present bill. (Cheers.) A great deal had been said et to the intolerable hardship which would In , placed on the clergy in compelling them to marry divorced pennon. Now, there was no inch elsem in the bill, and the only ball at all relating to the subject was copied Iron that introdund by Lod Aberdeen's government. (Chores.) Ile was afraid the memory of hie right bun. friend was not so • good as his, imagination. (Laughter) At that time none of the scruples which he now felt could have weighed upon the mind of Lis right hon. friend, or ho would not have consented to the introduction of such a bill. His poling convictions • mold only be of recent date, for he wee pulsating a Gonne diametrically appetite to that which he took three years ago. (Cheers.) De mending front the high theologind grounds which had been taken, ho wished to ooneider the bill with reference to the dictates of remota sod the nainiroteente of human en dety. (leer.) An attempt had leen mute to attach an ex , ermined importance to the meanie, and same hon. mete , Imre considered it a great innovation on the law of marriage and divorce, and that divorces would be obtained in eases to which they were nit now granted. The wade bad the member for Lebeitershire (Lord John Mothers) took a moist elaaleiWided view of the ease, threatening the country with till the evils which had been introduced into France, and pointing out the effect of the Prussian law of divorce, seeming that the sae remits would follow in this country, forgetting that the law of divorce under the present bill would be (WNW. tially different. (Hear.) He right hon. friend led he -pugned the statement of his hen. and loaned friend (the Attorney-General), that the object of the bill was to giVe a len/derive form to what had been the practice of parliamen, awl quoted a pump free the report of the toneuthionera, stating that by the law of England the compact of marriage woe indtholuble ; het he omitted to (junto the conclann of the presage which stated that the actual dissolution of soil, contract, when adultery was committed, was so eoneinant to reason and religion. that where the general law had omitted to give a remedy p aliment hod given ono by pawing a par ticular hew in favourof thee whit made out their i me. (Hese, hen.) The 1,111•11I141019“, stated, that from 1701 to the present time the legialature had constituted itself a court for granting cheece it vincula nautrimonil. Lord Loughborough, whom, regulations were referred to the other night, no doubt laid down inlet rules to bind a pplying to parliament fora remedy; but the Howes of im lZela, ns ac ting judithily in lay ing down °eosin rules, gave silent sanction to midi pomad ing'. (Hear.) The noble lord (Lord J. Mennen) observed that it was quite true that twit or three bills a year crept through parliament. Crept through parliament I Why, they laid peened through pardiainent with the concurrence and assent of the noble lord, for he had made no oljeetion to them. (Wear, hear.) Was not the noble lord aware that in 1840, on the motion of the present Secretary for the Colonies, the house, adopting the course taken by the House of Lord*, laid down certain rube for reptleting the proceedings with regard to divorce ladle, and, like the upper house, thus is. vied meth to seek a rented, which the general law did net groat ? (Hear.) Rat more than that. Not very long ago a stiodieg order we med . which required that at th e New reortest of every mon a divorce committee of nine members should be &minted, and in permeate of that order the meal notice - had appeared on the vote", and the eemittes bad been regularly appanted 'maim by PC1‘.1.41 for the parrs* of granting proper facilities for the riming of divorce bills and avoiding the sandal arising from the repeated publiration of details which must be gone into by some court before a diverse could I. obtained. (Heard At the present moment there were at least four divorce Lille on the table ; and if tho noble lord hail hitherto abstained 1 • from each bill. because he did not know they were " t hough the house, ho now invited hie attention to Um border that he might oppose them if he tholight 1 eye : l pr_2por i;us r bear.) Those who end " no " to the present i 1111, :el wished to be consisteut, to oppee • embodied the identical principle C h Z i bl o e dry me signed. (Hear, hear.) Then, with I MINI MfilteM i r imat bsther the course which had both so I keg lama did not amount to • judicial pro- i seeding, and It led act constituted keel( a COONt,•- I Sir John Stridden end Dr. Loaltingtna, in their evidence, I ' Aged that the mane iimuneihy parliament asuousted to a I 'JMlktil proceeding, that ps,llemcnt had constituted itself a i eimt, by which, on (retain beta being proved, it uniformly, I es a matter of mune awl a matter of right, granted relief to I the Gaiters in the arm manner en relief was granted In other I ea l& (Hear, bear.) But there was the authority of 1 the whole human race in opposition to the alleged indisan- • lability of marriage. It had been mid that in 1 the Rom esthetic church marriage wa• indissoluble I Now wee that so? The Council of Trent might, perhaps, , held meatlege to be tsdimolable r but the Row aotholice had • convenient emote of dispensing will, leo dialtinee of that church. There was a suprettre withanty, celled it di.- penestlen—ea admiesion that it wee imp imible to mein tain the doetroie uoimpeired the, niarri ere woo helm soluble,. _Meer, hear.) The question wee not whether there should he a new law of divorce. The main principle of the bill was not to sher the grounds or reams on which divorce was grant. d, but to alter to. mow relive loch the snit was to be brought, and to allow a woolen to one for • divorce on the Freund 1.1 adultery mad dements. The effect tithe alteration in the law would beta give to all Portia an equal and cheaper remedy than at preys nt existed. It bad been said that if this newsure should piss there would be one hundredths:orecs where there were now only ten. Now, • if there Wad anything in that ergotism', it only showed that' there were ninety persona out of one hundred who were at present uneLle to obtain relit f (liver, beer.) Having stated thegeneral principle of the bill, he would just advert to coed insets its, that which slloweil parties who Wall diVOlOl4 to matey again alter divorce a viucule had been granted. lie bed men mane petitions egeinst the bill as regarded sear emindhent. As the quoin= lied been stated to the house Ly who had spoken, it would name that the uniy de ed !orgy wee to be freed from the necessity of per isinting the inarriage recentnoy goer two persona, one of when had been drowned wider this bill. They maid the clergy objected to istrforou the 'teeing. ern umny of the church over pentons whom they termed the guilty parties. Now, that wee not the real objection that was made. The objection was (minded on the indiesolubility of warriege. They said in iffect that though en innocent husband had wind the greittort wrong that could bo inflicted on bin by his wife, yet 'mug a married man they were not boned to neer:mire the Lee of the land in performing the neeselage raveurony when the innocent hustmed or his wife Wei married. The right hon. member fur Oafordshireebook his bead and dimetited from that view, but there was eat sib exponent elsewhere on deo subject, and be had obtelmed from the journals of the House of Lards the identical motion t , uhtuittd to them embodying the views it the clergy on this subject, and which was rejetted by a majority of 78 to 28. 'The clause wee ea follows: " rrovided, nevertheless, that no clergyman in holy orders in the church of England shall, after the passing of this act, be liable to any censure in any court emlesiaatical or civil, fee refusiog to perform the mar riage service over any penes or peisoms who, after being married and divorced shall scut to be married again during the lifetime of the hie:baud or wife from whom they have been divorced nude? this act." Why it was clear that that placed the innocent husbaud or wife under tho ban of the church. Ile only wished to put this matter in its true light. The imestion would have to be discussed when they gut into committee, but he trusted they would not have to decide it, hat that the letzten who took that view of the rase would lied that their grourdw.untentible and that theywould not present to the holier. SO extreme a demand a* that which was submitted elsewhere. But let him say this bill impaled no now obligati= whatever. In all the rimaw in which there had been it divorce that obligetion of the clergy had existed SO the fullest extent aa it would exist alter this bill wee prod. It would be more open tin parties to obtain diverees, sad therefore there would be prebehly more persons who, having been diverted end wishing to contract a second mar riage, would prvecut theiuselves to have the ceremony per famed. It was only a question of degree, and not of prin. ciple. Auy coo of these four preemie who had their divorce bilk now before parliament, every one of which hills he bad I nu doubt would become law in • 1,-w days, might west himself, with another person with whom be wished to mintract marriage. to the parish el who would be obliged not by 'him Lill, but Ly the law ea it at preeett mood, le perform the ceremony. lie ' gild nut with to say more. lie had only wished to bring back the house to the region of common 'one, and to show that the law, whin li had been tee:toned to be the Divine law of Marriage wed divorue, wee a t o rte rblioll of the imagination. lie hoped that the house and the reentry would be disabund of theme iniscamouptimis with regard to this bill, which had been no industrimuly oreulated, and that the home would assent to the second reading of this hill. (Ileer.) Lord LON' AINE end not ono tittle of the right hon &ma dman's speech hail touched Mr. Gladsome's argument. The right hon. gentleman had deserted time with hypocrisy be cause they had passed private bah, for Memos without ques tion, and new oppomd this bill. It did net follow because member all 'wed a private bill to perwithout oppeoing it that, therefore, he wee a party to pivoting the bill. lksidec, the right Mai. 'endwise was as writ aware so he Wes that thin. lug only gave facilities of divorce to a chess, mid that the great Lama of the English people would Le au incapable of obtaining a Civioree atter this tall had punted as they were now. As n-surdid the clergy i. must be recollected diet the attention of the clergy had now been awakened fur the first time to the test that adulterers would he enabled to marry. The SOLICITUIt-OENERAL entirely agreed with Mr. Glieletone that the diereses.n of the I,llgiula part of the ,luestion was eatery fit for an arena like that. and that It was more fit for the closet of the divine, or the library of the scholar. But the qui:mien boil bra discussed elsewhere, they had hail the opinion of the heaile of the church on the itubjed, and there wee sueleuldedly the weight of euthirity that the. mar t oe was disodunle; and the right hien gentles= an u to allow that even l in the early ages of the churcht s doctrine w. held. But undoubtMlly that duc• trier at the present day was held by at least s great portion of the churl,. Any prentinima who wished fir it might find much valuable information in the report of the cote nant*. and the manteittee recommended the scluption of the measure now under lit, coneideration of the house. But atenueing that they eatetie.l theomelver that there wee nollong contrary to rehire.n in the course they prepimed, then eater, the preetiral queetion with teforenee to the deer of the measure on the ml condition of the people, and cer tainly he wee rather surpristd st the not& lord the member tor Lenesterehine who last night dr:wonted in tenon of notch indignation at the Idea of intro hieing a change which, in tonate/ to lino, would produce ishnpat einem.] immorality. woad be, to refuse to dissolve manias* in soy one. It word work the leen e. it . if parties kuew they could not get rid of:the tis it would wake them live together letter. It was .ad the pence syn. ea was a blot and a mental. The blot wee that it Involved the law for the rich and another for the poor; but anises they corded the measure touch fur ther the blot would still remain. The scandal was the actin for cram. eon. The objection to that action was that it gave the huehand • money compensation for his injury. It ap pend, however, from the speech of the Att. nerGeneral, that it was prepared to empower the court to inflict a Ins, which might be given to the huebanel as cow pensation. The scandsl, therefore, would still remain; i j the only difference wool,' be the amount of tonipene ethos, which, now decided by a jury the fittest ; eribenal--wimid e Unsealed to the deththu :of a judge. i lie Mewed that this hill had mated great shit in in the ••••Z ia The Mot ' , AI of the people felt Gut, although Ws t not be a new law yet it was a law :whith was i gels( to be brought within the mach uf the groat luau ft the People, and they thought, whether tightly or wroogly, that it would ban a tendency to shake the unceitv of the ' tearriege tic. What would be the met of the proceedings in ; the new court no one cool tell, but the bowie might depend • upon it that what had been called " the blot" wwilel ton- Untie, end that the vane argument that Wise now used in favour of bringing divorce within the reach of the 'nutmeats would be applied hereafter in favour of bringing it within the means of the poor. lie did not know what metier could be flare ato that, for the expenee of obtaining a divoree at pre sent was the chief ground on which the bill woe defended. It could not bo re:deeded that the bill was called See by the rouatry, string that there had not hem a single petition presented either in favour of the bill or of any alteration of the peceent law. Tho right hon. beronet the Secretary of State for the Homo Depart meat in referring to the report of the 001001.614012 on the sub ject remarked on the manner in which the commiseiner. questioned a great civilian. In point it fact they never saw his fere. (Laughter.) They did not examine a tingle wits miss. 'Fishing to ease time tiny obtained the evidence taken some time before by a committee of the House of Lords, and, adopting it, printed it with their report. (Hear, hear.) Some extreordinary etatements heel beta made th at night with regard to the =inept, bensioth abroad on the subject of Ilia bill. Time would have removed them ; where.. if the bill were pawed now, it would be passed is oppoeitieu to the feelings of the van majority of the people. (flew.) He did not believe the people of this country were unreasonable. He thought that it the arguments used in favour of tho bill were right, and if the people bad time to consider them they would be asenting poetic.; but, on the other Land, he be lieved that it the bill pass d the opinion would Le universal that it had been forced through the house without the re pretentatives of the people having had an opportun:ty of commuuicating with their constituent.. (Hear, hear.) In his opinion it Could have been wiser for the government not to have attempted legislation till the new Probate Court was in good working condition, instead of burying on a bill, which had a tendency to multiply divorces to an extent which, in his opinion, would be prejudicial to tho best in heres of society. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WALPOLE said as one of the commintioners who signed the report on which this bill was said to be founded, ho trusted the hors would allow hint to state the reasons why he should support it. He could not help feeling, especially after the speech which the just been delivered, that this measure had been, as the Attorney-General said, not only much nthunderstood, but also touch tuieinterpreteL (Hear, hear.) His right Lon. friend (Mr. Hettley', admitted that be believed that had the measure been longer before the country, the country would have tempted it as a good set tlement of the quotient. ("No," from Mr. Henley.) Hie tight hon. friend said he believed that if the menure had been longer before the house [Mr. Motley " And was right."] (hear, Lev)—the people would have assented to it. Would it out, then, have Lennie those who took such an interest in the lee-mien to nett-net the people as to the real nature of the bill ? (Hear.) But that that bed not been done was palpable from one of the letters read that night by his right hon. friend the member fortt,o University of Oxford, showing that the people of the parish referred to were under the bnpreseion that under this bill any enure between 'unhand and wife might teed to a diemlution of e. (Hear, hear.) Moreover, had a stranger, ignoraut of the nee, eon, into the home that evening and beard to the splendid language in which this bill led been denounned and condemued by his right hen. friend, he might hero gone away with an impanel , n that unnedninge fatuity had taken ponessien of parliament—(bear, heer)—that II e emceed relations of marriage were about to he broken; that they were abort to introduce insecurity into English homes ; that the petition of the woman, whets had been Tithed by the inane ence of Clint - Lenity, wee now about to be lowered, and that the morals of the money were likely to be degraded by the passing of a measure facili tating the granting of divinue, ununetioned by remelt mad re:tgiou. But if the same stranger hod waited until the fleet bleeds of that etagnitice et eloquesseehed paned sway; if be had had time to noel his thoughts, and had appealed to some peen of sober judgment sue of menet/ knosikelge to tell him the real elate of the law as it sac, and of the law as it would be, he would have levet lino the rela tions of nuuriage were in 110 degree banned or unaided by this tweeze—(. hen.); he would havo been told that the woman was not placed in a degraded posit ion as revered with the position which she had hitherto I .11.1.1—(hear, beer) ho would he been told that the nuptial bond wee not to bo dissolved for any other cause than that fur which it wax dissoluble now; he would have been informed that the sole objdrt of the hill was to substitute our good judicial tribunal ftr three had once. (Hear, beer.) In our of which the emending. trete admitted to be a scandal and deign,. to the country, in another of which for the ume ennui the mart had to go though the came proof, while in the third there was intro duced the ronnstrous aheurdity of the legislature of the reentry trying a question which especially required judicial Weight, judicial habits, to - ':eo patience, sod judicial it,. _ • • He sp___,. , ,,...r, jumeiel hubite, judicial liatienie, and' ua,,— in oke as it the eueirsure would thuds° th e framework o f partielity. (Chet roe.) By the bill and by the Lew a. it Mood eerfely ; and he band hoe opinion on the result of tin brill- there 111-10 two kindle of divorce, the temporary divorce and tating of divorces in Germany by the law of that country, the permanent ono: the one being called in the bill "jodicial The noble lord termed to the speech of Baron Gerber:le show- aseperetioc," and by the prevent law diver.. a mese& et dog the frupteney of divorce in Prelude; but be did them, the other bring the eivoree which dieesived t,e mar not tell than that In l'rnesis divers* was allowed Tinge bond. The groonds of these two kinds of divorces for a greet number of eau.% while by this bill the would be the same under this bill that they were Rt present ; right of divot,* was unlined to caaea of adultery. and as to divorce a ;incubi matrimonii, it would be obtain 'l hey had, however, an elluetrstion nearer Lune. much more able—and this elieuld he known from one end of the country %sweets—Hutt of Scotland, when the law of divorce went t. the other—by the husband for adultery, and adultery much farther than was propemed by thin bill, a lth o u g h s t o p- on ly, an d i t wan only to be, punted to the wife to a very ping alert ot them of Emus. In Feettleud, diroree war aggravated cam of adultery on Um part tithe husband. The allowed in cases of adultery or continuous desertion ; and It bill and the law were concurrent an to the grounds on which did not appear that this famlity produeed those frightful divorce wee to be edloweel; and heput it to the house whether coneesquentos when were epprehmeiled by the opponents of Humeral anything to justify the prediction that the bill if the bill ; nor were all the pomple running after divorces. It parsed would leadtothe meet profligate and dissolute manners, appeared that it five yews there were outs ninety , dye emu, (Hear, beer.) The objectione to the hill cone time ?teenist although the expense wan only Wee. u 201. and 301.; and be oppoite queries, and tenth I to the meet opposite results. bid yet to learn that the people, were coon immoral then One objeetion was, that the bill went much too far; another theme of this country. Looking at the matter in a practical was, that it did not go far enough. According to one argn point of view, the questieu far the house was who- rune there ought to Le no divorce at ell, it hung coutended then the pereent state was desirable or not— that marriage was in all elites indissoluble • according to an whether they were prepare d to stay where they were, other argument, th e y oug ht t o extend, if ' not the enures, at to retrograde, or to go forward. They who contended lent the rennehee, and were bound to give the women the lout memoirs. was indissoluble could nut convect to 4 I gin- mime relief a. was extended to the man. Him right hon. Wive divorce; for if to great it at all was contrary to the friend (Mr. Gledetone), in the counts" of his splendid - speech luau' tow, they would never consent to pr a divorce Lill. of their evening, spolee of the corn option of nommen to which Would they go back, and abolish divorce altogether, or retain the bill would led. He must remind the right bon. gentle thu present late, whet gave a remedy to the nab but not to man of his own etateneent, shat nireteen-twenties he of the the peel' It wee objeeted that eke new court would be very adulteries committed were adulteries committed by the expensive, that it would lead to all 'torte of collusion, and that husband ; so that if, in accordance with Lis argument, dissolutions of marriage would Le very treqeent. It was true tee p eat , of ebteining a divorce were extended to the wife the bell did not goes for 1e bring divorce am low as it might; equally with the husband, the minder of divorces would be what it did accomplish was to substitute a judicial legal inereued twenty-fold. As regarded the question whether tribunal for an unmet°u+ extrownlinary legislative one. As marriage was dissoluble or not, he wished to be as (lain and it mood the bill "relit sufficiently far, for it was easier to ex- frank as possible. He kept steadily in view the dietieeden tend the provisions of such a meneum than to abridge them. between scriptural allowance of divorce on any ground and Ile mold net colt:wide in the extrevageut ideos of the ex- aniptural perneirion of nuarriage. The two thing* were pone. entertained by some member., bat hr le hewed the bill totally dice Met. l' ASS ribald to enter into • religious aro would elbul s mil twee extensive remedy than the pre- bent on this subject, but he was convinced that on religionue Rent at en expmee not toe great. If that were so, what wee grounds marriage wan indimoluble except for adultery, the red olecenen to the second reeding? As it WAS said, As regarded the pleseges in 'Matthew and Mark, th e v i ew thee wee it coercive mestere; but rte the H o me Secretary heel wheel' he melt was Hitt which had been taken by the vast remarked, it made no change in the low eels regard to the majority of divines both in past ages, and recently. On clergy, but left them in exactly Ibe same position as they snot • subject he would net state his own opinion, whirls of were at prevent. The clergy Led no come right to enure" lied no weight, but would quote that of Dr, complain of than bill then of the eyelet. which had Munn:end, one of the taut jell( bum and sterling seised for the legit one hundred and fifty yowl. nub? of oar divines. The right honoursblo gentleman thee these cireurneesnonc, it @motored to him that the bill cited the opinion of Or. Ilmeamond, to the rtfret that when (muppving always a persoun had matiefied himself there was one, that when two of the Evangelin e ma d e a general adme n° vieleshon of relig ion in its adoption) was one for which naont, and a third made a statement with an exception, the they had eminence grotende if liquehetion Wald, Nimble ; and exception was to betaken from the third evangelist, end lin iegi4.ri.,u was desirable, for the ememest elude of things could ported into the general statement of the other two, not end ought not to exist. That was the view which he (the right tom. gentleman) took ler. HENLEY said the hon. gentleman the Secretary of upon this subject; and he would *.miter it Ly ore or two 81ste fur the Howe Depertenent lied made R mpeech exceed- illustrations. Suppose there wars three jurists 'renew upon clever as a pereonel 'weer to that of the tight hon. the annual law of this country, and Suppose two of them the member I. the Univenity of Oxford, but Le were to ~,y, " Thu law does not allow yen to kill." Sup with singular Uranus avoided any attempt to mower peso., tot, that the third raid, "Th e l aw d oes not a l low kis memento, and had omitted any reference to the state- you to kill, except in self defence—would not the law, as, ~... owe (shell in candour Red Menem he ought to have declared by the two first, he explained by importing into it neeicel) of the right hon. gentleman, that it was only within the quelitication expreamd by the third. (Hear, hear.) Or, the lam two menthe he had turned his attention to the sub- again, *appose the two were to Rey, " You shall not swear," jet. The ruin hon. gentleman mid he was very anxious to and the third mid, " You shall not swear, t xcept in a place the real pueition of the derey before theeountry, WU court of justice;' would any body contend that tbs two doing so he wade no reference to any of the onmerouspeel- former were not in perfect ronnetency with the third ? nuns already presented, nor to the declaration Mimed hyB.ooo (Herr, hoer.) So if two of the Evangelists said, " Yon elereymen, hut quoted therm/us given by a Meek, prelate I sh a ll n u t put away y our w if e , an d if you el ~. and marry in theotho r home ex an expvieem of the sentiments of all again, you commit adultery;' and if a third Evangelist the clergy of the country. The de 'Aeration stated their seen- raid, "You shell net put away your wife except for formes ea desire that facilities unauthorised by Scripture end by the Lion ; and if you do, and merry agent, you emmuit adultery:. law and ritual of the church should not Le given fer the was not the expremed qualification in the third case to be ' dime:dation of holy matrimony. They dad not say that mule understood in the other two ? (Cheers.) Tile view he (lb. ' nage WAS intlimoluble, but they prayed that, u marriage W,dpole) was now taking wee confirmed both by ancient ' with a divormel women um declared to he adelterees, they fathers anal modern divines. Their opinieue lad to a col- might nut be compelled to celebrate such a neariege. Ifs land by Archbishop Conner at the time when Eared cue (Me. Henley) agreed with the clergymen who had signed was under discuseion, and they might be men in the mound the declaration in thinking that marriage was not indiu volume of Burreee 1 ' lifetory of the Reformation." Or they 1 soluble. might be found, with some additions collected by Bishop Sir G. GREY read the declaration otherwise. Conn far the lbske of Norfolk's case, in the 11th volume of i Mr. lIENLEY butn the clergymen who drew it up, and the " Stem Trish ;" and theugh they d'ffered as to re- a that was his opinion. The question wee not whether nano- 1 marriage, they were all - agreed as to the dimalueility of 1 age was insliseelnkele or not, bit whether it was win r marriage for adultery. Ile might quote slat the opinions of I or prudent to bring its dissolution blue to the doors Bishop. Tayler and Hall; and indeed, from the time of the 1 of all persons. It was evident from the langusge of, Duke of Norfolk's WC down to the preemie moment the bench I the Secretary of State and the fiulicitur.Genend of bithreps heti never voted against them divorce Lills. that this WY only an instalment, and if they onceesteldiehed Ile (Mr. Welpole) was finite reedy to eencede to his right I a court of law for this purvey they should bring it to the boo. friend (Mr. Gladstone) that the twee NUM of Jinxes I doors of all people. The question was et heoher they would end re-merriore were very different; but, Sc opting to the , better consult the interest oef Donley end religion by deprive boor joulgtuent he could foam, he thought that the women 1 iv a few peneons t 4 the advantage 14 a dissolution of near- divoneL who euording to t!..e words of Chtiet could not be e riege. or make it 5" extensive es to bring It within the reach runiarried eithout the ounsiteiou of adultery, were W.A . 0111 I of every one committing adultery. No one could deny that divorceel for lemer offences, net not for the great armee of 1 , thelew of Eremite Lad worked ill. With oven] teSeutlend the fiernicolun. (Hoar, hear.) The conclusion to whi o h he , Sulicitow-General had forgotten to inform them that there the arrived, thereon., wait, that Scripture was silent upon the 1 preens divorced could nut merry unin, the guilty woman Arent; and, that king silent, evety clots must deal 'cab it a could not rte trey bee pie/moue. That undeell the difference, in the way moot conducive to public morals and moat lolls.. , I and was en euential cheek. It wag net so iu the E'i of tit the commueity at large. The question that next i I present bill. It was mid there were only three mewas w owe of the moat important that could be agitated I i eounee open to them. He believed the beet. course In any legislative assembly, namely, whether it would i be beneficial to allow the redevelop of dimmed pm; sons ? It was nut very easy to grepple with the difficulties which Cary bad here to encounter' but Il.theught they must all admit that r cssiarriage nowt be uilkiwed to the innocent party, otherwise they would wake the innocent ei t her f or sits guilty, and they ,would threw ten bun a burden which neither reason nor religion would pantify them in impeang. (Chem.) There wan. beautiful presage be one of our lead ing divines, which be world quote upon this debate " Surely, then, no tnithatancloug the great authorities to . the contrary, I may safely my the, in the 4.210 divorce. it fa lawful fo r the isthmian person to marry ; but for that I thud the Church of England bas hitherto Mee somewhat tender upon this point, and that this practice is sonieuttat of rill report, rand obnoxious in varier-Iv ropects toteueure, I should therefore esnarinlyadvim those whom it may concein easefully to avoid it, drat by being reccieciled, wbnn thel in p reaLle, or by the practice of holy continence, where that tan ha mnin teined ; but if that suay not raved I dare not lave load on any nten'e cenuedenue whichOud has not I cid upon him, and I cannot creme thecae when God has toady nee." (Ilene.) Those were the word, of Mellon Hall, and he (Mr. It ripple)) mme therefore to the gene.rol conclusion that Ileum rho con demned the bill on the ground that ft went Po far, had no warrant for so doing, either in mripture or in lemon ; and that the damn would he priectly justified in neognining that which had been theianeetice in this country for no many oenturien. (Cheered The next °biotic n woe that the lit did not go Po far o it ought ; and he was tinippv to my that no one had proposed on this orcanion to extend tine mounds Si divorce to eafilllPS other than adultery, :met iildemper, at, impumibility of living together, voluntary teparation, aad the like. (Hem, hear.) Burke, is hi, own beautiful manner, bad truly said that " Chen,' lenity by confining mar riage to one pair and by making it irchamlable hod 00120 more fur civilireetion than any other part of the Divine word," but it must 100 remarked that when Burke talked of indissolubility he Ind always the execpthe on account d adultery in bin mind. If they granted divorce fer any other cause then would be immense thither lest they should break up that which was the best and the tendemet of all earthly connexions, and dia,•rade marriage into a mere tramient amo- Mama. But the tendency of the right hon gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone.) Argum en t wen t t o s h ow t h at if you mauled divorce to the one piny you ought en mriptural principles to extend it to the ether. But the right hon. gentleman did not draw • proper dietinetime between the Scripture' ellowanee tel dime:tend the sociel application of that allowance. Scripturally, divorce might be allswed to Wit ; attics; but ahem be came to ounAider the question in a to , ad peint of vier., he most say that the difference bower n the two cones won plant s Adultery committed by the wife necessarily broke up firmly and home, and it might lead to the introduction of a opunome offspring. Then:xis] consequeumv which flowed from the adultery of a husband did not necemarily had to the same mr Chn u iro n t mi , •• ; if bmi you dm allo si w il ed wb d h i . v h :urc u e b te ed be b"n gran n' t m er k e e : the y application of the wife. you introduced a danger of conni vance where the pm-ties &dm separation." No woman, or at beet very few women, would commit adultery for tho mere purpeeu 44 being eipareted nom her husband where they could not live together; but he (Mr. Walpole) was afraid that them wire many men who would not hesitate to do se. (Hear, hear.) The bill certainly contained an extension of the means given to the woman to cue for a divorce, beyond them the at Fo ment enjoyed. She might obtain a cliveree ter adultery, coupled with wilful dews-lion or prom cruelty; but that was an extension which would not be ndlocred by any petal evil*. (lime, hear.) Ile now came toffee care of the clergy; and on this point he entirely concurred with his right bon. hind the member fur the University of Osicad. (Cheers.) He appealed to the government to inert a t lade which would save clergymen from the oppression of lc ins com pelled to perform a sortie* which they conselentinaly thought was no longer applicable to the parties who sought it. (Hear, hear.) Ha learned ft iend tab' that On chore to the law was the fide,: to be required. Ile (Mr. Wulpolt) agreed with him in that reelect; Lot there was no clam clean whe were mare obedient to the law then the clergy of the thatch of ErugLand; and therefore it w or net against them that Rey aru,vment of tide kind aught to he preened. (Cheers.) 11 they pressed the bill As it stood there were many elemr wen who weld find themeelves bonne to violate the law of the land or else to violate the law of God. That was not a portion in whi.h any man ought to be placed. (Cheers ) It was a thleeme, loan which they might avoid either by del ring the re-merman of divorced perilous to be entirely a civil entree, or else by intruductng a clause mak ir.g it not comm . :Wry on the clergy to solemnise thneere•Mairr.Agee. (Hear, hexer) In ]ti lend celebrated • wedding of thu s docriptieu. end 01 ° 11 0 the canons requiting a bond no' to re-marry bad only been pared in 1603, and although an act against . bigamy bad only hoop paw e d in 160 1 , declaring that marriages of per.. eon,. dimmed ebould not be a“ounicd bigamy, althea* Loud bad then mama to believe that the act Le performed wren rot wrong, day ever)• your ucy,, oa the natter tne d frs : e . t ::of w ja sParth t n h e u e t t a , r. ; . ° Te t : e an e r d e t : n se rn ba l . f p.... i n v i. "% :: c : t .7 y rien w t a h. t. re t t lc t mile= than for that umarion and not furl that the ma aciencee of clergymen ought not to he ate rind, as they would be, if the bill In red in its incised form. (Hear.) 'I he paneliste of the bill was empty the question whe 'heir they should aubditnte another tribunal for the pee. mut mode of preceding. Apply to that principle the three eatreen one of which the right h. n. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said they must adopt. Loppme tbcy took the first course, and left things as they were. They would then retain all the anotredies of the present :wactlee—the action of crim. con, the mcleniastieal mete dies, and the parliamentary jurisdiction. Ile mid net con met to this. (Hear, hear.) The inched course wcn to go hack and declare marriage indimoluble. That coarse would only lent to the practical dissolubility of marriage by memo of adultery. Such bud been the effect before ; encl would be the effect spin. Not otly ;hie, they wool' heti, l • wrong open the injured husband which they bad no right to infliet upon him —n burden whi c h G o d did nut indict. If, them Clore, he mild not acquiesce in either of these courses. there we, nothing left but to ende..suur to fettle thin delicate and ditiltun qamtion—not by a measure which ahned be an inetalegiar, but by one which should meet the eireninsteente of the ease by nodding the evils on both aides. He believed that this bill meld do thin—that it would protect the wire from the inc omerancy of the husband, and protect the chil dren hon the inconstancy of their parents. It was not that he was tneeneible to the coearquenete of doing anything to touch the inciolubdity of the marriage tie the he &incepted the mature, but because, if it were tho settle ment, or he trutted it would be, of this quaatine, he hoped it would preserve the sanctity of the marriage state, and ITIF Peeve. too, that purity, chastity, and pence which were—and pray God they might ever be—the chid ornament and chr racierixtic of an English home. (Cheesy.) ?Ir. NAPIER thoncht that in considering thin queetiea the relieotu and civil view of the tattler alma be kept die. tioct. Now, the ground on which he opposed this bill woe, became it permitted the remarriage of the guilty parties as a Chriennn ceremony. This was, In his mind, going in the very teeth of divine law. It was attempted to get over this by saying that Scripture was silent, and that therefore the matter was a mere Amid question. But noerithetanding, his right hon. kneel (11r. Walpole) fell bank upon the authority of Ilishup Pad. However, he (Mr. Napier) said that prelude% statements °ley went to the case of the innocent parties. On the question whether the adulterer end adulteress should be allowed to marry Refer a divorce, all the bishcps but ems were agreed that no Etch permission ought to be given; and they were supported by the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Cluchester, stud other influential temporal peers. Tine greatest nonconformist authority, Richard Baxter, took the same vicw. Ile had not hoard a 'single authority in favour of such • ponds...lm. This question was debated in the House of Lords in 1800, en the bill of Lord Auckland ; and bishop Horsley then maintained that the guilty partial ought not to he allowed to marry. The bill passed the Roue of Lords with that proviaion ; also a pruvloittn cooking adultery a mime b unioluelde by imprisonment ; and the VS in that form was Ruppried in the Cutlrl,lll by Mr. Wilber force, Mr. Hominy, and other eminent Lieu. All this w ent M prove that it ma never before contemplated to allow the marriage of the guilty poke. He found tint onset of die prime divorce bills recently obtained related to pettiest fries India. (Hem, hear.) But private acts wren no put of the law of the bud; end all these acts contained clauses enabling each of the panne. to marry again, but the dame enabling the Adulteress to re.rearry was invarisbly attack out fa cure t:UW[ll Would the Arroruey-General consent to the analogous clause in Lis Lill being eruct cut ? (lear, hear.) The liberty to merry again was the ereat point of the bath Be could admit th a t adultery wee n ground for divoree ; but when it n ee insisted that both the guilty end the innocent party eliould have the power to merry again, he email not acted. to It, lie had nu eljeelle to the injured party king allured be marry 'ruin. but he eould not go further. In what u position would the eery be placed by Ruch an enactment. It would be the most intolitable tyranny to compel them 80 perform the marriage service over parties whom he believed could not legally contract that obligation; and a conscientious clergy man, taller than de that, would strip Ms gown over hie bead. (Hem.) Another of to this Lin was that it dial toot reeks adultery a crime. What would bo said out of &oust " Oh Obey would e.y), thia is a gentlemanly L It ; thew is to be no reel masitiumnt." (Hear, hear.) The poops so lution of the eumtien would be to make adulnay u wide raean v, ptuainhable at the snit of the injured party. This weuM be eonson a nt with the law of Strider% This bill was lute:Jed only for the husband. There was no help for the woman, nor for Human ratinoßu who held by the ineinsulability of marriage. They hid %belittled the in abetment and the 'deflection, and left things worse than they had been before. TLe ATTORNEY-OENERAL briefly mallet to the ar gument, of previous speakers. The Lon. Ittriobtr for Surrey had. 1w said, emiu a lam nr.roments from lbe 041 Teetainent e and Lad rittillesgol him ithe Attorne)-(tuncial) to producer • ease of intermarriage imbeequent to adultery M eay of the books from Omenia to Malachi. He thrtuAt 1* wuld find one is which adultery followed by tatuder ieraluni in inter marriage. (bear, hear.) But aa the apecrlf of Lis right Lau. blend the member for Orford UntvenOy had, libe Aaroll . 3 rod, swallowed up all the rest, he should romans hnewlf salt following very briefly Lis tight h.a. Aimee' ar,...micalm. It,. ri,rlit hon. friend bad tratltaVtaNd on the present °coition, and yet be wad vote for this bill tallow be wished to rtaltify . all hie owo recorded atm nil re intone when a eaLinet minister in 1813 awl Itss4. The tweeted bill woe the name as that whit.b Lad marred the probritien of the fuLtnet in 1844, sad whirh w hog no it ye Atternry-Oeneral) attempted to bring in again iu the right hon. a.entlenum mai wee en attempt to male pc:aired capital, and -bould not have been tried, cocopt wda a eer- Minty of aueeene. But what Lad him tirot hon. sand doolllla on the present rotation ea Lie rrowniam argument against the bill? A bank wri tten by on obscure prurtot •I. in eceleabaalieel court in balsa& (Mr. Giausruan THE 'EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, ATTGITST 1, 185?. it I"! :di rbsi r tko al Jo ,;-.-.-!. t evor DO° is se l Z • by& it il& .4 OM mail itbosiq le. II . y