The Sun. — London, England, 1830-06-04 00:00:00

--' f l'Iul'1:"'4---tt-- ----------- - -----' -- -----------------E------t ' l I—--'-') _ ---------*--- , f rie 4.4 62(.... j - , Zl:L e z e_ 7 : s .o . i 1 14,____.- • 7-... -!.. ./0/..1 -- - • ROYAL ACADEMY SOMERSET-HOUSE. THE EXHIBITION of the ROYAL . . • .. i 1 01 ,1 i ),—, J ~-.. nfz- i ° '-: 1 .7...},:' e7-e'.:A A l' ft ACADEMY is now OPEN. --' 'i ".„ Ap 4 , ~VA ox i-- , , :--4 , 14 - 0 "i) ..... ad Admission (from Eight o'clock till Seven) One Shilling. f i ~, , 8 .r=---..\i' ~ i.....; ~.„.„04 „ C - 11 , ... '' ' I '-'t . : ' A 1"/ ( '') ' ' o ' .--':;: :-/ )f 1 ) ft ir . of Catalogue One Shilling. iei ' \t ‘ A/W,` s' , - - ,- ~,::-:. / /Elk :=,-544/, ' HENRY HOWARD, R.A., Sec. A • , ,„,;>, . - 'ttt 3, pe,-. -. " - -t , 5, - [u- I I ,-, g o 0 , „4111 16 . -.. . . : its FOR CALCUTTA. ,-, t • est 0. .0- i- - 6 ..-,, , 7 3.1,, vi ...,-.,-- 4 41111 ~., ',,-, Si l l I % 4 - 1- ' N. 4 , - - v . iOV './1) c--', 411. n n IDROM LIVERPOOL, to sail punctually , 1 ' 1 ' ' /lb Abli 4 ''' 0 k ;ce it i i,,, ' - Jill t —an ~ Nt 1 Ox 7 _1 i • .11.' 'T • ~ ~i.t on the Ist July, the fine armed passenger ship GEORGE, Captain SWAINSON. From BRISTOL, to sail punctually on the 20th July, the fine armed passengership ARABIAN, Captain WILLS. This ship will receive wines for the voyage round both at Bristol and Madeira. LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 4, 1830. No. 11,771. PRICE 71). Both ships sail fast, are fitted up in a very superior style for passengers to India, and their Commanders are well know* for their liberal treatment of passengers, of which they possess the most flattering testimonials. Each ship carries an experienced Surgeon. Apply in London to HENCKELL and DU BUISSON; Liverpool to ACRAMAN and STITT ; or in Bristol to the owners, W. D. and W. E. ACRAMAN. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(LAST NIGHT.) Lord Combermere, on his creation as a Viscount, was introduced by Viscount Lorton and Viscount Beresford, and took the oaths and his seat. TWICKENHAM. TO BE LET FURNISHED, f or SIX or EIGH f WEEKS about MIDSUMMER, a Good Detached FAMILY HOUSE, with Coach-house, Stabling, and Large Garden, &c. Letters to be addressed. to W. X., Post-Office, Twick enham, Middlesex. This day was published, price 4s. in boards, dedicated to his Royal Highness th e D u k e o f Cl arence , THE ADVENTURES o f ARISTON, • By an ETON BOY. Printed for T. Cadell, Strand, London ; and W. Black wood, Edinburgh. This day was published, in 3 vols. post 8 vo. THE KING'S OWN. A Tale of the Sea. By the Author of the " Naval Officer." " The author of The King's Own' may take his place at the head of the English Naval Novelists of the day."—United Service Journal. Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 9, New Burling ton- street. This day was published, in Three Vols. post Svo. THE MUSSULMAN, or LIFE in TURKEY. - By R. R. MADDEN, Esq. Author of " Travels in Turkey, Egypt," &c. " the face of Mussulman " Not oft betrays to standers by " The mind within, well Skill'd to hide " All but unconquerable pride." BRIDE OF ABYDO9. Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 8, New Burlington street. BURKE'S PEERAGE and BARONETAGE for 1830. THIRD EDITION, Corrected to the present period. V. Inscribed, by permission, to his Most Gracious Majesty, in one large volume, with numerous Illustrations, 114URKE'S DICTIONARY OF THE 11 PEERAGE and BARONETAGE of the BRI TISH EMPIRE. " This popular Work justly deserves to be considered as a History of the British Nobility. It is enriched by a variety of personal anecdotes, never before published, re lative to many illustrious houses, in addition to numerous authentic details connected with their lineage, and commu nicated to the author by the noble inheritors of the titles. The volume, containing 900 pages of letter press, is moreover illustrated with upwards of 1500 heraldic plates, Is printed in double columns with so remarkably clear and beautiful a type, as to comprise a quantity of matter equal to no less than 12 octavo volumes !"—John Bull. Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 8, New Burling ton-street. PALAIERS' IMPERIAL NEUROTIC BALSAM, OR NERVOUS AND STOMACHIC RESTORATIVE. THE very great success which has attended . the administration of the above medicine in cases of low nervous debility, and the surprising effects which have been produced in speedily restoring tone to debilitated stotnachs, and, by so doing, strengthening the digestive organs, creating an appetite, and invigorating the whole system, have indu ce d th e p ro p r i e t or mos t s t rong l y to re commend it to the notice of the public, and to_assure them, that, as an antidote against sickness, fainting, and hysteri . • cal affections, and as a Nervous and Stomachic Restorative, it stands unrivalled, and is a speedy cure for the Ague. The most satisfactory and respectable references might be brought forward in its favour; but, as this m e th o d i s fre quent!), adopted merely to deceive, and as a single bottle of the Balsain will almost invariably afford tile greatest relief, if not wholly remove the complaint, the proprietor prefeis recommending a trial, and leaving it to stand on its own merits. Prepared only by E.lward Palmer, .149, Tooley-street, near London -bridge, and sold in bottles, at 4s. 6d., lls., and 20s. each ; the latter containing as much as six small ones ; sold also by C. Butler, 4, Cheapside ; J. Sanger, 150, Oxford-street; R. Johnston, 68, Cornbill ; J. Gif ford, 104, Strand; E. Davies, 43, Wood-street; C. W. Walthew, City-road ; Fleming, 8, Holborn ; and by most respectable chemists in town and country CUBEBS, WITH SARSAPARILLA, &c. THE most safe, certain, and speedy remedy ever discovered for the Cure of Gonorrhoea, Gleets, Strictures, Seminal Weakness, Pains of the Loins, Kidneys, Irritation of the Bladder and Urethra, Gravel, and other Disorders of the Urinary Passages, frequently performing a cure in the short space of three or four days. It contains all the efficacious parts of the Cubeb, combined with the Salt of Sarsaparilla, and other choice ingredients, which makes it valuable for the removal of Secondary 5 Y;n149 11 04 Pains of the Bones, and all Disorders arising from an impure state of the fluids. In eases of Debility, I perseverance in its use has been found to give strength 4nd increase of health to the whole System. The most Ilelicate female may take it with perfect safety. Prepared only 4,J. W. Stirling, Chemist, 86, White chapel, from whom it can be sent to any part of the worl6 (upon enclosing a remittance), in bottles, at 4s. 6d., 10s. and 20s. each. Caution—As there is a spurions imitation, be sure " J. W. Stirling" is written on the stamp. Agents --Sanger, 150, Oxford-street ; Prout, 226, Strand ; Barclay, Fleet-market; Johnston, Cornhill ; Nix, Royal Exchange; Wilmot, Chemist, High-street, Borough; and all the principal Medicine Venders. ".• Ask for Stirling's "Rees's Essence." THE KING'S OwN.—This genuine English naval Novel has been warmly received, not only at both the United Service Clubs, but by the public in general.— Debate runs high, in many places, as to the claims for superiority between COOPER, the American, and the cele brated English writer of our best national " Tale of the Sea." FEMALE HEROISM.—At some miles dis tance from Utrecht is the village of Amersfoort, worthy of notice for the tranquil beauties of its situation, but more so as being the birth-place of the celebrated pensionary BARNEVELDT, who, after having been one of the chief agents in shaking off the yoke of Spanish despotism, and alter a zealous and faithful life of fOrty years spent in se curing the liberties of his country, was beheaded at the age of seventy, through the fury of religious zeal. His sons conspired to avenge his death. The plot was dis covered ; one fled, but the other was taken and sentenced to death. H:s mother petitioned Prince MAURICE for his pardon. "It is strange," said the Prince, " that you do that for your son, which you omitted to do for your hus band." The aged widow of the venerable patriot made the following noble reply to this ungenerous sarcasm : " I did not ask pardon for my husband, because he was innocent; I ask it for my son, because he is guilty."— Dr. -Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia. NAPOLEON'S LONGING FOR IMMORTA- Lrry.—l have already mentioned that BONAPARTE was rather talkative, when travelling ; but, as we were passing through Burgundy, on our return to Paris from Marengo, he said, exultingly, " Well, a few more events like thi, campaign, and I may go down to posterity." " I think," replied I, " that you have already done enough to secure great and lasting fame." " Yes," replied be, " I have done enough, it is true. In less than two years I have " 0 n Cairo, P ar i s, and Milan ; but, for all that, my dear o fellow, were I t o di e to - morrow, I should not, at the en d ten centuries, occupy h alf a page of general history. " of half an h He was right. Many ages pass b efore the eye i n the course our'', r ' eadin • and the duration of a teign or of a life i s but the affair a moment. In an historical summary, a page suffices to descrihe all the conquests of ALEXANDER and Catsat, and all the deva,tations of Ti - =a and GENGII XHAN. We are, indeed, acquainted with only the least portion of past events. Is it worth While to desolate the typal for so slight a memorial ? Bourrienne's- Memoirs of Bonaparte. Lord KINNOUL presented a petition from the Agricultural Society of Perthshire, against an in crease of the duty on British spirits. Mr. Crayford, from the Treasury, presented some papers relative to the ti per Cent. duties. Mr. Danvers, from the East India House, presented some papers relative to their Commercial and Ter ritorial Accounts. The Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY presented a petition from Coventry against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. The Earl of WESTMORLAND gave notice, that he should to-morrow bring before the House the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, on presenting a petition from that individual. Viscount LORTON presented a petition from Reading, against the Punishment of Death for For gery. Lord DURHAM presented a petition to the same effect, from Northampton. Earl STANHOPE moved for copies of certain papers laid before - dill 'Hale; upon the - subject 'of the Shipping Question, between 1823 and the.pre sent time. Lord TEYNHAM presented two petitions from parts of Kent and Sussex, against the Malt arid Beer Duties. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a pe tition from a place in Devonshire, against the Punish ment of Death. Lord KING presented a petition from Oldham, in Lancashire, praying for a Reform in Parliament. GREECE. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished to ask the Noble Earl, whops he saw in his place, whether there was any objection to give the House copies of.the despatches of our Ambassador at Con stantinople, relating to the mode in which the assent of Russia had been obtained to the giving up of two millions of ducats that she at first claimed as com pensation from the Porte. He also wished to know whether there was any objection to furnish copies of the conferences held at Poros. The Earl of ABERDEEN answered, that the reason why the copies of all conferences had not been given, was, that the substance of them was em bodied in the Protocols that had been laid on the table of the House. As to the copies of the de spatches, he could not give any answer till he had had time to consider how far the interests of other Powers, as well as of this country, would be affected by them. The Duke of WELLINGTON moved that a Message be sent to the Commons, requesting them to furnish their Lordships with the Eighteenth Re port of the Committee upon the Law Courts in Ireland, and also with the Evidence on the Beer Bill.—Agreed to. Lord HOLLAND here renewed the converqa- tion relating to Greece, by asking the Noble Earl opposite.whether he was clearly to understand it to be the Noble :Earl's intention to lay before the House copies of the conferences that had taken place at Potos. He also wished to know whether any person had been specially deputed by his Majesty's Government to report to them the discussions upon that subject, The Earl of ABERDEEN believed in the copies of the conferences at Poros the Noble Lord would find all the information he required. No person had been specially deputed to make such a Report, but he believed the Noble Lord would find the papers very full upon that subject. Lord HOLL,AND w had asked the question, be cause, having attentively gone through the mass of those papers already before the House, he really was unable to divine the reasons which had induced the Allies to change the boundaries of Greece as settled by them on the 22d of March. Now, as that change was one of a most important nature, he really was most anxious to know the reasons which had induced the Allied Powers to make it. HICKSON'S DIVORCE BILL. The Marquis of SALISBURY moved the Order of the Day for proceeding with the inquiry relative to East Itetford. The Bishop of LONDON (who it seemed had not observed this motion) moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of ilickson'a Divorce Bill. Some conversation then ensued as to the conve nience of going on with one of these matters in pre ference to the other, and finally the House divided, when there appeared— For hearing Counsel on the second reading of Hickson's Divorce Bill. Against it 67 Majority —49 . . Their Lordships then continued their examination of witnesses on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill until Nine o'clock, when the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-(LAST NIGHT.) The House went into a Committee on Hamerton's Divoice Bill. Mr. Harrison was then called in and heard at the bar on behalf of the petitioner. Witnesses were then, as usual, examined, to prove the adultery of Mrs. Ilamerton with Mr. Bush. The report was brought up and received, after a few words from Mr. S. BOURNE, Mr. HU3IE, arid Mr. WYNN. CLYDE NAVIGATION. The House proceeded to ballot for Members to serve on the Clyde Navigation Appeal Committee. The following were appointed :—Mr. O'Connell, Sir H. Parnell, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Munday, Mr. Stan ley, Mr. Corbett, and Mr. Littleton. It was or dered that they should sit to-morrow. Sir H. PARNELL presented a petition from the landowners, &c. of Queen's County, against increas ing the taxation of Ireland. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from St. Giles's, C4plegate, against the Bill for removing Scotch and Irish vagrants. SMALL DEBTS. Colonel DAVIES presented a petition from Wor cester, for the more speedy recovery of small debts. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Mr. J. H. George,a prisoner confined by sentence of the Court of Requests in Southwark, praying for relief. - . . After a few words from Mr. Alderman WOOD and Mr. CALVERT, the petition was laid upon the table. Mr. HUME presented a petition from an indivi dual residing near Isleworth, complaining of the manner in which the Assessed Taxes were collected. —Laid on the table. Mr. HUME moved for a Return of the Salaries paid to the several Judges of the Courts of Exche quer, King's Bench, and Common Pleas in 1792, and the Funds from which they were derived, to gether with a similar return for 1829. Also a Re turn of the Sums paid to the Lord High Commis sioner, to the General Assembly of Scotland, and the Funds whence it is paid; also what will be paid this year.—Ordered. .I%lr. SYKES presented petitions from Kingston upon-Hull, against the Pauper Removal Bill ; from the Unitarian Dissenters of that town against West Indian Slavery; from the same Body, against the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery.—To be printed. Mr. LENNARD moved for a Return of the Persons executed for Forgery at the Prosecution o! the Bank of England. Sir ROBERT PEEL said they should be laid on the table as soon as they could be obtained. Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the Uni tarian Dissenters of Kingston-upon-Hull, and other Friends of Religious Liberty, in favour of Removing the Disabilities which affect the Jews. A Message was sent from the Lords, requesting copies of the Evidence in the cases of Sir Jonah Barrington, and of the Sale of Beer Bill.—Agreed to. Mr. BENETT presented a petition from a Society meeting at the King's Head in the Poultry, praying for poor laws in Ireland. . . Mr. O'CONNELL presented thirteen petitions from Ireland against the Vestry Act. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that Government had admitted the evil of the Bill, but had refused to amend it. Sir R. PEEL said that the statement of the lion. and Learned Gentleman was not correct. Go vernment did not refuse to amend the Bill ; all they refused was, to give any pledge till they had had time to consider. Mr. O'CONNELL—Perhaps Government only declined it; but it was exceedingly like a refusill. Sir R. PEEL—I assert that Goreintnent neither refuied nor declined; on ale contrary, I pointed out an amendment myself, but claimed time before the Government pledged itself to any measure. Mr. O'CONNELL, in presenting two other pe titions to the same effect, said that, at all events, Government had postponed it without limit, and that was very like declining, or he did not under stand English. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Athlone, from the brogue-makers, complaining that they were not admitted to the freedom of that town; also a petition from Oldham, for universal suffrage, &c.; also a petition from Thomas Webb, praying for an Act to authorise new trials for those persons who had been wrongly advised by their at torneys. Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition, respect• ing the Scotch Removal Bill, froth Liverpool ; also a petition from the merchants of the same place praying for the lowering of the Ever duties; also a petition from the corn dealers of the same place, complaining of the variation of the different measures by which corn was meted. Mr. HUSKISSON moved for an account of the number of promissory notes issued during the past year by the Bank of England. Ile had given notice before the recess of a motion respecting general banking system of the country; but owing to the absence of' his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) he was obliged to postpone it. Unless Government could assure him that between this and the next Session nothing would be done in the shape of gua rantee to the Bank of England, he should still feel it his duty to bring it 1- 60 ; though he was afraid that he should experiengardome difficulty in finding a .day. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER certainly had no intention, during the present Session, to propose the prolongation of the Bank Charter. Mr. HUSKISSON said as this was no answer with respect to what might take place during the vacation, he must bring forward his motion ; and he hoped his Right Hon. Friend would afford him a day on which to introduce it. The return was then ordered. Mr. CURTEIS presented three petitions from parishes in Sussex, against the duty on hops. Mr. EGERTON presented a petition from the parish of St. James's, Westminster, against the Vestry Bill. Sir G. COCKBURN presented a petition from Plymouth to the same effect. Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from guar dians of the poor of Norwich, against the Poor Removal Bill. LAW OF DIVORCE. Dr. PHILLII4ORE said that are subject which he had to bring forward was one of great import ance, for the Law of Divorce in this country was i different from that of any other country n Europe. By the Roman Catholic Church marriage was ele vated into a 'Sacrament; and, by a Canon, rendered indissoluble even in the case of adultery. But in Protestant Europe the pronouncing of a divorce at once gave the parties concerned the right of marry ing again. In England the case was very different. The Ecclesiastical Court could only pronounce a divorce a mensa et thoro, and the party seeking re lief entered into a bond that he would not marry again during the life of the other party. Of late years a practice had been growing up of applying to Parliament for each particular divorce. This was strictly a Bill of Pains and Penalties against the of fending party, and was not even open to the middle classes of society, who could not afford the vast ex pence that was incurred in procuring suck an Act. The first case in which any Parliamentary divorce was applied for was that of the Marquis of North ampton, in the year 1547; he had obtained a di vorce in the Ecclesiastical Court ; but the question arose whether, the Reformation having taken place since the last case, the divorce was a vinculo matri. monii as well as a mensa et thoro. The question was looked upon as so important, that a Commis sion was appointed, consisting of Archbishop Cran mer and nine others, to inquire whether the Lady of the Marquis of Northampton was still his wife. The decision, we understood the Learned Gentleman to say, to which the Commission came, was, that it was not safe to consider the divorce as perfect without an Act of Parliament. Subsequently to that time, in 1552, or one year before Queen Mary's ac cession, a law was passed regulating divorce. After the accession of Queen Maly there was a different law ; a Bill was brought in to re peal the Act of her predecessor, and the country was carried back wider the Romish Ecclesiastical Law. In Queen Elizabeth's reign there was another alteration, and divorces were then granted by the Ecclesiastical Courts, and con tinued to be so for fifty years. In fact divorces were granted by the tribunals till the latter end of Elizabeth's reign, and cases were found yet recorded of parties who had applied for divorce on the ground of adultery, and to whom divorce was granted a vinculo matrimony. In the early part of the reign of Elizabe h there was nothing to prevent parties from marrying again ; but iu the 44th year of her reign the opinion —that it was not lawful for such parties to marry again—was received in the Star Chamber. By the suggestion of Archbishop Bancroft it was declared that all such divorces were only a mensa et thoro. By a law passed in the 44th year of that Queen's reign, the authority of the Ecclesiastical Law was fully restored. The 107th Canon of the Church declared that—" In all sentences pronounced only for divorce and separation, a thoro et mensa, there shall be a caution and restraint inserted in the act of the said sentence, and the parties so separated shall live chastely and continently, neither shall they, dur ing each other's life, contract matrimony with any other person. And for the better observa tion of the last clause, the last sentence of divorce shall not be pronounced until t h e party or par ties requiring the same have given good and sufficient caution and security into the Court that they will not any way break or t ra nsg r ess the restraint or prohibition." This Canon was then fully established as the law, and it was thus fully decided both by the law and the decision in Fol jamb's case, that divorce could not be obtained in this country except only from bed and board, a mensa et Moro, and not a vincula matrimonii. This made the law of England similar to the law on the subject of divorce in most parts of the Continent, and it continued in this state till Charles the Se cond's time, when the celebrated case of Lord de Roos occurred, in 1669, and then, by a special Act of Parliament, a divorce was procured for that Nobleman. The Duke of Norfolk's case, which was the next remarkable one, occurred in 1692, which occasioned great discussion, he being an individual of great importance. It was in 1692 that the Duke of Norfolk brought forward his Bill of Divorce; but the Bill was thrown out; and it was the year 1700 be fore he ventured to repeat his efforts, having previ ously brought an action for damages at Common Law ; and then, after protracted debates, the Bill was car ried. He Only referred to the measure to show what was the state of the law and the state of feeling in the country on the subject of divorce, up to that period. He found that for a century and a half, from the refor mation of Charles the First's reign to the accession of George 1., there were not more than five Divorce Bills carried through Parliament. He believed that would be found an accurate account. Divorce was never then granted, except to persons of high rank ; and 'in the Duke of Norfolk's case it was expresily stated, in the preamble to the Bill, that one reason for granting the divorce was, that the Duchess was barren, arid it was not fitting that such a Noble family should be extinct. The privilege of divorce was then exclusively confined to the very highest classes, and granted to them only as a great favour, and under special considerations. After the acces sion of the House of Hanover, a greater laxity was introduced, and a greater number of Divorce Bills passed. From the year 1715 to the year 1775, a period of 60 years, sixty Divorce Bills were passed; and from 1775 to 1800, during a period of 25 years, there were seventy-four such Bills passed. From 1800 up to the present time, he found that there had been ninety passed. This showed that there had been a great increase of Divorce Bills, owing principally, he believed, to the great increase of wealth, and to the facility with which Parliament had gradually come to grant such Bills. The great expence of such measures, and the facility with which Parliament granted Divorce Bills to parties capable of paying the expences, made it impossible that the Legislature should not feel that some altera tion of the law was necessary; and several attempts, all of which had begun in the House of Lords, had been made to alter the law. In 1771, a Bill was brought into that House by the Duke of Atholl, the preamble of which stated that it was a remedial Bill, made necessary by the scandalous frequency of Divorce Bills. In 1779 the Bishop of Llandaff, Dr. Barrington, who was afterwards Bishop of Lon don, brought in a Bill; and the preamble to this Bill stated, that the great frequency of applications for divorce made some remedy necessary. Both these Bills were passed through the house of Lords, and sent down to the House of Commons, where they were read a second titre, but they were lost in a Com mittee. In 1800 Lord Auckland brought in the Bill which bore his name, and occasioned a great deal of discussion. That Noble Lord had for the object of his Bill to make adultery a misdemeanour at com mon law, and he urged, as a reason for this, the same grounds as bad been given by the other Lords for their Bills—namely, the frequency of adultery and application for divorce. The discussion on that Bill might safely be referred to—since the eminent persons who took part in it were now so far removed from the scene that their opinions were of great weight, and of great importance. Ajany of the per sons who delivered their sentiments in the debates on Lord Auckland's Bill, were men whose opinions would be of value at any time; and, having been delivered at a considerable distance from the present time, partook of none of the passions of the mo ment, and might serve as a guide to their decision. Lord Grenville, whose opinion on all subjects de served attention, stated, at an early stage of that debate, that ": his Learned Friend on the Woolsack, awl the other two Learned Lords who presided in the Courts of Law had declared that the greatest abuses were committed, arid that at present there was no remedy for these abuses ; and that in many cases there was collusion between the parties, and that in no instance was there a possibility of ade quately punishing the guilty. They found their proceedings on the Bench, in such cases, a farce and mockery." This Lord Grenville represented to be the opinion of the great Law Lords of that day, and he added, " the Ecclesiastical Courts were equally deficient, there was no way in which die injured party could obtain redress, or vice could re ceive its punishment. He hail long been sensible of these truths, nor had he ever been present when a Divorce Bill was passed, that lie did not think the House disgraced and degraded." At another stage of the Bill, Lord Eldon depre cated its rejection, " because he was certain that nine out of every ten cases of adultery that came into the Courts below, or to that Bar, were founded in the most infamous collusion, and that, as the law stood, it was a farce and a mockery; most of the cases being previously settled in some room in the City; and that Juries were called to give exem plary damages, which damages were never paid, nor expected to be paid by the injured husband," It was impossible to !mow that these were the opi riions of the law authorities of that day, and not be convinced that some alteration of the law was ne cessary. A year afterwards, on the occasion of dis-. cussing a Divorce Bill, Lord Russlyn °User ved, that " applications for Divorce Bills had, of late years, been so frequently introduced, that they had been consi'tered as almost mere matters of course. It was highly necessary, therefore, to check their progress, and, if possible, to resist the torrent which threatened to bear down all morality and virtue." These were the opinions of three very competent persons, two of them great law officers, and one a distinguished Senator, and the House would be well aware that since that time the evil had not diminished, and now more than ever required a remedy. He referred Hon. Members to their own experience to be satisfied that the same defects still existed which Lord Eldon, and the other high authorities he had quoted, bore their testimony to the necessity of amending. That things were still in the same state he might prove by the recent case of Lord Ellen borough's divorce. He did not wish to revive the unpleasant discussions on that Bill, but he would remind the House of them to show how incompe tent it was to discharge judicial functions. It was said on the one hand that Lord Ellenborough was the kindest of husbands; and en the other, that he had neglected his lady. Some Members spoke of collusion, and said that Lord and Lady Ellen borough came together to seek a divorce; all these assertions were made by respectable persons, and showed how necessary it was that some other tri bunal should be had recourse to. Testimony, too, was given on that and other cases, whicu, without sifting, would never. have been received in an Ecclesiastical Court or Court of Common Law. This case was an illustration of- the unfitness of the House to examine witnesses on such an important question. But if the House could not examine wit nesses effectually, and sift their testimony to the bottom, what better was it than an idle mockery to bring a Divorce Bill before it for its decision ? That House was, therefore,not a proper place for deciding questions of divorce ; and that opinion would be con limed if he stated the great precautions used by the House of Lords, which were riot used by the House of Commons, in introducing Divorce Bills. By one of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords it was imperatively commanded that no Bill should be introduced which did not contain a clause that neither the adulterer nor the adultress should marry again. This Standing Order was adhered to. No Bill could be introduced without this clause, though in the progress of the Bill it was regularly struck out. Another Standing Order of the House of Lords of a graver character showed how incom petent the House of Commons was to exercise judi cial functions, for that House could carry no such Standing Order into execution. By a Standing Order, dated 25th March, 1798, it was ordered, that before the second reading of the Bill, the party praying for the divorce should attend at the' bar of the House to he examined, if their Lordships should think fit, in order to ascertain if there were any col lusior►, direct or indirect, or if the act of adultery were known to the husband, or if there were any collusion between the wife and him to procure a sen tence of divorce before an Ecclesiastical Court, or procure a verdict at Common Law; and that the parties might be examined as to how they were living at the time of the act of adultery—if they were pre viously separated, or if the husband performed ail his conjugal duties. This was a Standing Order of the House of Lords, and every petitioner for a Bill of -Divorce received a copy of this Order, and a notice to attend. Compliance with this Order was, in truth, dispensed with, but it showed how necessary it was to have proof that there was no collusion, and how strict the other House was in providing that there should be no collusion betwixt husband and wife. There were other circumstances connected with the popular form of that House which made it unfit for such investigations. Such questions were made the vehicle for expressing popular sentiments. Let the House recollect that the Divorce Bill of Lord de Roos was discussed three or four Sessions, and was made the watchword of a party, it being considered, as test of the question, whether Charles 11. was to be divorced from his Queen or not. The Duke of York's party opposed the Divorce Bill, and it was not supported l y the courtiers and adherents of Charles 11. The same sort of thing occurred at the time the Duke of Norfolk's Divorce Bill was brought in. The Duchess was a Jacobite, and the Duke a friend of the revolution. She was a Roman Catholic and he was a Protestant, so that this ques tion was made the banner under which party feel ings were enlisted. There was even yet canvassing for opinions and support for such Bills, as were dis graceful even in a Turnpike Act. The next point he would mention was the inequality of the law.— Nothing was better established as a principle of our law than that it should be equal for all parties, for high and low, for poor and rich, and that was the case throughout the law, except in the law for di vorce. He had asked a few days ago the expellee of a common Divorce Bill, which had nothing pe culiar in it, and he was told that the expence was between 6001. and 7001. That was an expellee which no person in the middle and lower ranks of life could possibly submit to. What made it more galling here was, that if a man went across the borders into Scotland, or if his wife committed adultery there, lie could obtain a divorce for 10/. or 15/. He had received this information on good authority, and he knew that 15/. was the extreme expence for a divorce in Scotland in ordinary cases. It was clear, then, that some remedy for our law of divorce was required; and in speaking of remedies, he did not mean to go into the question whether wives should be allowed to divorce their husbands, which, in case of incestuous adultery, the House of Lords had permitted ; neither would he enter into the question whether or not an adulterer should be allowed to marry again. It would not be right in him, a humble indiv►dual, to bring forward any spe cific remedy ; but he knew that the proposition he should make had the approbation of others.— The impression on his mind was, that the question of Divorce ought to be referred altogether to the Ecclesiastical Courts; and that they which decided the separation a rnensa et Moro, should also decide a vinetdo ntedrimonii. That was his own impression, and he had the satisfaction of knowing that Lord Thurlow held a similar opinion. He had stated so in the debate on Lord Auckland's Bill, in 1800; or a particular tribunal migh. be appointed to decide the question of divorce after a decision of the Ec clesiastical Courts. Some persons proposed to refer the question immediately to the house of Lords, arid allow its decision to be f►nal. There were two points he was, however, anxious to guard against. He wished to have it distinctly understood that it ought to be, in his opinion, the principle of the law —that marriage was indissoluble. The interests of families, of the whole community composed of fa milies, demanded that marriage should be declared indissoluble. The next point to which he wished to advert was this—that in his opinion, no other cause but adultery should be allowed to be a sufficient ground for a divorce. The Hon. and Learned Mem ber again referred to the hardship to which people were now exposed by the impossibility of getting rid of an unfaithful wife, ar►d instanced in particular Clergymen, and landed gentlemen of small fortune living in retirement and out of the bustle and vice of a town, who might have the misfo►tune of an unfaithful partner; he quoted the several attempts which had been made to improve the law in 1771, in 1779, and in 1800, and concluded by moving, " That an humble Address be preiented to his Ma jesty, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to direct the Commission, now sitting to inquire into Ecclesiastical Courts, to take into their considera tion the state of the Law of Divorce, into the ex pense of obtaining a divorce, and to enquire into the best means of bringing such case under a legal jurisdiction." Sir CHARLES WETHERELL began his re marks by objecting generally to commissions to in quire into the law, contending that the appointing of them involved an admission of something re quiring to be remedied. He had never approved of commissions to reform any abstract point of law. His Hon. and Learned Friend, with all his talents, had failed to suggest a remedy, and so had other learned men of great talents. The evil arose out of our Constitution, which did not permit any Court to exercise legislative power, which granting a divorce implied. The Hon. and Learned Member entered into a brief history of the marriage law in England, and its difference from the marriage law of other countries, remarking that marriage was indis soluble in Roman Catholic countries. In Rome there was a tribunal, called the Holy-office w hich did grant divorces for certain cases, in which the parties were held incapacitated to contract marriage, but never granted it for adultery. The Pope had sometimes granted divorces on political grounds, but up to the time he was speaking, the Pope had never, he believed, granted a divorce for adultery. The Pope did, however, grant a divorce to our Henry the Eighth in former times, and he had more recently granted a divorce on political grounds to Napoleon Bonaparte. Independent of these ca,es, however, it was not the custom of the Church of Rome to grant divorces on any account. In this Protestant State no divorce was ever allowed unless by the way of a legislative provision, and he could not, therefore, avoid thinking, that if they adopted the plan of his Hon. Friend, they would be letting in a wild, latitudinarian, and mischievous prin ciple, not recognised hitherto by any country in the world Divorces a vinculo mat rimonii had never been allowed in this country unless after a solemn investigation in Parliament; but if they were once, by the institution of a cheap kind of Pie Paudre Court, to allow all, who had a small sum to spend, the privilege of being separated a vincido. »rdrimonii, it would follotty as, IFC Cei r a ti ,4044e quence that the lower classes, whose R 101141 1,. %Nere,ii more corrupt,, and whose prin c ipl e s on these etited tecti were more lax than those of the higher cliised,' would be continually applying for, divorces, while the facility of obtaining them •at a small expellee tvouldbicrease the inntforelity of adultery, and, in deed, give eneouragemint to the commission of that offence. It was said, however, that almost all t he cases 'which came before Parliament at present were cases in which the parties colluded to procure sr:di vorce. Now if the higher classes colluded in Oils manner—a fact of which he saw no evidence—if they colluded to procure a divorce, 'when the cost of that proceeding was greatwould they collude less when the expence would become comparatively small? The great question for their consideration was, whether the law should or should not remain as it was. And if it was a truth that the Noble Lord (Eldon) had declared the proportion of collu sive cases to be nine out of every ten which came before Parliament, he confessed it was necessary the House should • interfere.—(Hear; hear.) — He denied, however, the justice of the assentor', that the proportion of cellusive oases was so great, and he equally denied the propriety of the :as sumption, that the, Houses of Lords and Commpni were unable, by the exercise of their judgment; to detect the collusiou if it existed, or that their powers would be delegated with greater propriety to ally in ferior Court, constituted in any mossier harever. He was not disposed .to allow that the House of Commons did not possess ability, acuteness, um( in telligence sufficient to detect any species of collu sion; but if the Hon. Member did not think the power they possessed sufficient for that purpose, he had no objection to such an olteratien of the stip:l ing orders e's would meet the difficulty of the case. ire believed indeed, it had been too much the habit of the House of Commons to allow all power of examination on Bills of, Divorce to rest with the House of Lords, and, to pass the Bill which they sent down without inquiry and without any exami nation of the evidence for themselves. He thought this was a bad practice, and had no objection to the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of. re viewing the standing orders, and devising some remedy for the practice of that part of the subject. For these reasons, however, he could not support the motion of his Hon. Friend ; and he thought the House should not support it, unless it was prepared to say that in nine cases out of ten which crime before them at present, gross injustice was done to the parties in consequence of their inability to:de tect the collusion which always existed. That "col lusion lie, however, denied; and he also denied the assertion that of late years any political motives - had influenced the feelings of those who took part the discussion on Divorce Bills, or that justice was not administered there as purely and efficiently as it could be administered in any Court which the Hon. Gentleman could devise. Great difference of opi nion prevailed at all times among some of the greatest men and ablest lawyers of the day respect ing the propriety of granting divorces at all. Lord Eldon and Lord Stowell—men agreeieg so much in talent, in legal knowledge, and brotherly Wee tion—were, he might say, at daggers drays lug on the question whether granting divorces did or•did not tend to increase adultery, or whether divurees should, under any circumstances, be conceded to any party applying for them. In the midst of this conflict of opinions, the Honourable Mem ber called on the House to part with the sufficiency they possessed for the consideratioe of such cases to a tribunal of some kind or other which would be subject to all the objections made against the House, without possessing any of the firmness, talent, and judgment, which enabled them to overcome those difficulties which, in such curses, occasionally present themselves. Although, there. fore, he *as riot averse to any inquiry which might have for its object an improvement of,the meths; i d of passing Divorc e Bills, through the Hous e ; h e was riot disposed to lust with the power which the House possessed with regard to Divorce cases, a nd for these reasons, if the lion. Member pressed the motion, he should give it his decided negative. Mr. O'CONNELL was also opposed to the ore don. He would willingly equalize the facilities of the poor to obtain divorces with those possessed by the rich suitor, but in a different manner from that proposed by either of the Hothead Learned Gentle men. He would do away altogether with. the pOwer in either rich or poor to obtain divorces, and in do rig so felt he should be merely acting in the spirit of the common law, as it was enforced previous to i t ,t l i i ag estßo an e t f l ormation. In the Catholic Church marria ge v canon se i n dissoluble of contract tire pro so cwashu Church, as t t hey accord. had been explained by various commentators. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke last was in error in stating that the Catholic Church granted divorces similar in kind to those sanctioned by the Legislature, arid was particularly unlucky in quoting the divorces of Henry VIII. and of Bonaparte, as instances of the exercise of Pupal jurisdiction in such cases. It was well known to the readers of history, that so far from the Pope having granted ileri t y VIII. a divorce from Queen Catherine, Ilia refusal, of it was the probable ground why the Hon. arid Learned Gentleman was not in the habit of attead ing mass, instead of the ritual of the Church of England; at least Clement's withholding that divorce, hastened, if it did not altogether bring about, the separation of En g l a nd f ro m the Church of R ome. Mr. SPRING RICE would support th e u because he wished to see some measure arranged which would alike affect rich and poor. he SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that his Hon. and Learned Friend had not at once brought forward a specific Bill, with the details which were intended to provide a remedial measure for the grievances of which he complained, instead of sug gesting this reference to a Committee already con stituted for a different purpose. For his own part, he should be very sorry to see any court constituted to decide questions of divorce in this summary way; the effect would be to make this grave . question in such a court as common us ordinary differences were in the present tribunals. Heades much dislike w s any man to see one law established for the rick, and another for the poor, but he feared - that the remedy now suggested, instead of benefiting the poor, would aggravate all the evils which it was intended to heal, Dr. LUSHINGTON could not consent to levee this subject referred to the Ecclesiastical Commis. sion, the business of which was at present so com plicated and perplexing, that it heti more difficulties to surmount than it could well accomplish, without this fresh addition to its labours. This would be very well understood when he informed the House that the principles on which the Ecclesiastical Courts of this country were acting were, except in some few trifling instances, the same now as they were at the time of the reformation, notwithstanding the great change which had taken place in many of the relations of society. Many opinions had pre vailed among eminent arid learned persons upon the very grave question of the power of humour trite,. oafs to exercise a summary jurisdiction over ques,, dons of marriage a n d divorce, upon which he meant to say nothing more at this moment, than to point to them, as showing the difficulties which en compassed the consideration and the impolicy of re verting it to a Commission already overloaded with other business. A good deal had been said about collusion of the parties to a Divorce Bill. To that remark he should only reply, that having been pro fessionally engaged on the one side, or upon the other, in all such cases except, perhaps, five or six, dining the last fifteen years, he could positively de clare, that a suspicion of that kind could only have attached to three or four of them at most, tnit not to one as far as his own direct knowledge neut.— (Hear.)—He had no wish to adopt the Scottish law of marriage or divorce in this country, arid he concurred ntchuileitulgt,vittLlris the o b n e o t u t r e a r ble and Learned course would dhe cuss the subject upon the introduction of a spk . eille Bill, instead of by promoting, us at present, a getterel disquisition, which could not lead to a practical result. Mr. WYNNE supported the motion, and sail that he really saw no nicongrudy in eecounnending dge nd : )1. a rsity they Ata dia. ISOI I n 0 1 ' our itiOa g on I are Fier agog' L T. r the . C. on of isrp dates► nnk &tit- wrist relict EN B. If the ereet, ki. P. rd, in firm Adeo ilarly ngeet dins, 'q. 01 the ,cony in ea I, Ist Out- f the ii, to myar 'raa pe. Miss 31i0 IS I. )pe s6