The Sun. — London, England, 1857-07-25 00:00:00

What the Admiralty did with regard to stores was to keep at the different stations such an amount of stores as would meet the probable demands of the service, and no one could suppose that it was their duty to provide for every possible emergency. COUNTY FINANCIAL BOARDS. 111 r. KNATCHBULL-111i3GESSEN wished to kcow whether it was the intention of the government to in troduce any measure upon this subject next session ? Lord PALMERSTON said at one time it was the in proposes measure; but th e bill in tention of government to trodneed by Mr. Milner Gibson elicited great difference of opinion with regard to the manner in which the boards should be constituted, and her Majesty's Govern ment found so much difficulty in reconciling the various opinions on that subject, so as to afford a fair prospect of carrying the bill through the house, that they were not able to carry into execution the intentions which they had announced. The go vernment did not see their way sufficiently to justify him in holding out an expec tation that they would introduce a bill on this subject in the next session. THE NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES. Mr. B. HOPE said, in the absence of the First Com missioner of Public Works, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposed to lay the esti mates for building the War and Foreign-uffices before the house this session Mr. BRISCOE was glad that the hon. member had called attention to this subject. He believed the cost of the contemplated Government offices would be enor mous. (Hear, hear.) On the previous day a distin guished architect, with whom he hail conversed on the subject, told him that he believed the cost of carrying , out the block plan for the improvements in Westminster, for which a prize of 5001 was awarded, would not be less than twelve or fourteen millions. (Laughter.) This was not the proper time for embarking in such an under taking, and he hoped the Government would postpone the consideration of the subject till another session of Parliament; (Hear.) He knew he spoke the opinion of the country at large—(hear, hear)—and he would use all the means in his power to arrest the progress of tha bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged the house to understand that her Majesty's Government were not committed or pledged in any way to the adop tion, either of the block pan of which his hon. friend had just spoken, or of any of the plans which had been lately exhibited in Westminster Hall. The matter was still open to the consideration, not only of the house, but also of the Government. With respect to the bin. member's question, he had to state that it was not the intention of the Government to present any estimate this session. Mr. GLADSTONE said he was one of those who sympathised in the alarm which had been expressed by his hon. friend near him (Mr. Brisc )13). He was very mach pleased with the statement of his right hon. friend that the Government wera not committed ; but con , melted with his views of this extraordinary project, was a strong apprehension lest step by step, and inch by inch, without any formal decision of the house, they shoul be draivn unawares into pledges with regard to what he Benet say was, considering the necessities of the public service, one of the most extraordinary schemes, in a financial point of view, that had ever been submitted to the legislature. If, as was stated to be the case. it was xpected that they were going to clear a great square for the purpose of erecting public buildings at a cost of se veral millions, let them beware of being drawn into the scheme unawares. The proposal of the late Sir W. Moles ' worth was a rational one, but he hoped the house wcul 1 not commit itself to any portion of the gigantic scheme in question without opportunity having been afforded for full discussion on a matter which so much concerned their duty to their constituents, and he would add their reputation for common sense. Mr. BENTINCK said they bad heard a great deal of late about the inconvenience of discussion on the ques tion of adjournment, and if he himself continued the discussion that evening, it was solely because he did not succeed in catching the Speaker's eye when the gallant admiral rose to address the house. (Laughter) It was remarkable that the emergencies of which the right bon. baronet spoke occurred every three cr four years, and that enormous sums of money were frequently wasted fur want of due precaution. He should like to know whe ther the Governmentdid ordid not take upon themselves any responsibility in regard to the mode and rapidity 'of transition in the case of the troops conveyed to India, or whether the whole matter was in the hands of the Erst India Company. The declaration of the right honourable baronet (Sir Charles Wood) that tee present emergency could not have been foreseen wet one that ought never to have come from a Minister. It was the business of the Government to foresee emergen cies. He could nave wished that the right hon. baronet had stated what number of troops would be left in Great Britain and Ireland after all the troops designed for In dia had embarked. The house ought to know what was the present state of the defences of the country, and what resources the Government had to meet any further distur bances or calamities which might arise. They should not be contented with the assurance of the Prime M:nist r that, in his opinion, those defences were satisfactory. COMMODORE KEPPEL. Lord C. PAGET rose to ask the First Lord of the Ad miralty whether there was any foundation for the report that Commodore Keppel had been recalled from his cone mend in the China Seel The noble lord said he had understood within the last half hour that it was not the • intention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to recall Commodore Keppel from the China Sea provided he were acquitted by a c met-martial. Perhaps his right hon. friend would do him the favour of nodding his Lead - if that view were correct—(laughter)—as in that case he should not feel it necessary to trouble the house with nay statement. (After a short pause, during which the sign in question was not given by Sir C. Wood, the noble lord proceeded.] He was afraid be must assume that Commodere Keppel was not to be allowed to remain in the East, and that the Admiralty were about to commit an act of great injustice to garde one of the most meritorious officers in the nee y, and that to at a time when the services of the best and bravest officers were much required in the China Sea against an enemy that was very numerous and not alto gether despicable. Under these circumstances he felt it Ms duty to state in a few words the circumstances which attended the loss, of the Raleigh frigate. Commodore Keppel having distinguished himself greatly on the heights of Sebastopol, was appointed second in command under Sir M. Seymour on the China station. He pro ceeded without loss of time for his destination ; aed when within sight of the enemy's coast his ship had tee misfortune to strike on a sunken rock, which was not in any chart and wee totally unknown, so that no blame could attach to the officer in command. The chminandere irechiee represented very strongly to the Admiralty that no blame attache I to 'film ; and since the catastrophe in question he had been actively employed against the enemy, and, so far as was known, he was PO employed at the present moment. It he were recalled it must be owing to one of two reasons. If a sentence of his brother yfficers should be recorded against him, he (Lord C. Paget) would not say a word against his subsequent re cal, but as he was justified in placing implicit reliance on the charts, it was not likely that such an event wou'd happen. His reed!, if it took place, would, he believed, be (mint) an antiquated rule of the Admiralty, that a commodore of the second class was incapacitated from hoisting his flag on board any other ship than his own ; so that if, in the chapter of accidents, a commodore in command of a squadron had the misfortune to lose his ship in action with an enemy, he could no longer held a command over the other ships. It was, he under stood, in consequence of this antiquated rule of tee Modes and Pereians that Commodore Keppel was to be recalled, and thus degraded and dishonoured, without any blame being attributable to him. He might refer to a parallel case which had occurred in the army. Ween his hon. and gallant friend the member for Greenwich (Sir W. Codrington) arrived at Varna with the expeditioeary force sent .to the east, he was a major in a battalion of the Guards. A brevet went out ; that gallant officsr was promoted, and the result of this was that he was at once placed on the half-pay list. Under ordinary ciroem stances he would have been compelled to return to Eng land. The lamented Lord Raglan, however, knowing the value of hia services, and disregarding in such a case old rules and regulations, at once appointed him to a command ; and the country owed to this circumstance that it had the services of the gallant officer at the Alma. and at Inkerrnann The much-abused Horse-Guards eon firmed Lord Raglan's appointment ; and, knowing that Sir M. Seymour desired to retain the services of Commo dore Keppef, he appealed to his right hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) to pursue a similar course, and, if he could net do so otherwise, to stretch a point, and give the officer in question a red pennant. At all events he hoped the Admiralty would not recal a most efficient officer, who I was 15,000 miles from this country. (Hear, bear.) He believed his right bon, friend felt very much as he did on this subject, and trusted that he would take the bit in his mouth, and retain Commodore Keppel in active service. Sir G. GREY said the fact of his having to rise to answer the noble lord illustratfd the inconvenience of discussion on the moti on f or a dj ournmen t . His right hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) having spoken once could not do so again, and it was necessary, therefore, that he should reply on his behalf. No one who was acquainted with Comm o d ore K oppe l wou l d dissent from the praise which the noble lord had bestowed upon him ; and he did not know why the noble lord assumed that the Ad miralty were doing anything to disgrace it. The whole course of th e i r conduct showed that they had no dispo mann to disparage the services of officers of the navy. The fact was that Commodore Keppel had list his ship, and by the invariable rule of the service whenever that happened the officer in command was put under trial by court-martial, in order that the circumstances of the loss ,night be inquired into. If th ere were no room for blame the proceedings wcold of course terminat e — as a ll mus t hope they might terminate —in C ommodore Keppei's acquittal ; but while the matter was still sub-jadica, he must protest against any attempt to prejudge the ques. tion in the House of Commons. He believed, moreover, that the house itself would. not be willing such a ca se to be forced into a discussion of the question. General CO DRING-'TON did not think that the noble lord had desired the house to prejudge the case of Com modore Keppel. His object had been to call the at ten. tion of hon. members to the rule of the service which prevented the commander-in-chief on the spot employing a commodore who had had the misfortune to lose his "it). This, he thought, a very unfortunate rule, one which often prevented the country from having the ser vices of able officers. Admiral WALCOTT quite concurred with the gallant general in thinking that the rule to which reference had been made was a very unfortunate one. He thought that where a court martial abroad acquitted a com mander, the admiral or other, officer commanding in chief should have power, in case of necessity, to make use of that commander's bervices. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE held in his hand a copy of the surrey of the gentleman who had been seat to in- rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1857 but I want to know, among other things, in making a change in a law of this antiquity and importance, what prospect of stability is afforded for this new system you are about to introduc. ; and it is material in deciding that queetein, to c insider that this new plan has never yet been ad pta 1 in any part of Christendom, or I believe in any couatry outside Christendom, but certainly not within the limits of Christendom, either in Ro nen Ca tholic countries., countries cf the Eastern Church, or Protestant countries. That appears to me to be a good reason, among a multitude of others, why we should have ample time to consider what we are about. We are not provided with the requisite information at this moment to enable us to legislate satisfactorily. Now, air there was a point referred to by the right hon. gentleman (Nlr. Hen ley) of immense importance. If the right hon. gentleman had not raised the question by his motion, if the bill had been passed in haste and without due deliberation, what according to the right hon. gentleman, should we have done? Under the idea of legislating for the benefit of the poor and middle classes we should, by passing this bill, actually cut off from those classes those facilities for the minor and ecclesiastical divorce which they now enjoy through the medium of the local courts. The bill was discussed during two months in the House of Lords, and by all the learned lore of the country. Yet they never found this out. It was reserved for the patient acumen of the right hoc. gentleman the member for Ox fordshire to find that, while we supposed that we were legislating for the benefit of the poor and middle classes —assuming it to be for their benefi .—it cut off from the great mass of the people those legal judicial remedies in suits of marriage of which hitherto they have been ena bled to avail themselves. In consequence of a conversa tion I land with the right hon. gentleman I have been led to ascertain how the case stands in Scotland, in order to ascertain the effects of localising the courts, for though we have no means of dissolving marriage, we have the means, as the law stands, of effecting judicial separation. In that respect our system is curiody contrasted with that which exists in Scotland, for while we have got local courts to administer a limited law of divorce, Scotland has no local courts, but administera the law—not a limited law like ours, but a law extending to the dissolution of marriage—by means of a central tribunal. What could have been more natural in any full consideration of the 1 subject with a view to legislation than to have inquired into the state of the facts as regards Scotland, and to have a-curtained from those facts what the probable re sult of concentrating the matrimonial suits in London would be. Fee there we have an example before our eyes, and it is a very important point whether we are to entertain matrimonial suite in a central court in London or in 30 local courts spread all over the country. Upon that point we have no information. When, however, I a v how importact the question was in reference to re stricting the facilities given to the middle and poorer classes, I endeavoured to see how the case stood in Scot land. I spoke to the Lord Advocate, but he had no infor mation to give. Nobody thought it worth while to in quire, and no information could be obtained. The noble lord could tell me of the number of divorces, but as to the habitation of the parties be could tell me nothing. I want back to the report of the commission of 1853, and then I found an acc mint of about 100 ,iivorces that had taken place within some 6 or 8 years perhaps, but the number of years does not matter. The names of the parties were described, and in most cases the residence was given, but riot in all ; but there was not one of those divorces--or if one, it was an exception to the ru!st— that came from the remote parts of Scotland. As far as the information I was thus enabled to obtain goea the appearance of the case is this—that the law of divorce in Scotland is not a law of divorce for Scotland, but for Ediaburgh, Leith, and the immediate neighbour hood of those towns which are in easy and cheap com munication with them ; bat the great bulk of the ruial districts, especially in the northern and western portions of the country, are completely cut off from access to divorce, by the fact of there being only one court. Now, it that right—is that a system we should introduce into this country ? (Hear, hoar.) It is al!1 very well for legal reformers who draw diagrams of law refuel!, on paper, and view them with the accuracy and precision of a mathematician dealing with a problem, to propose a central court with its well-paid officers and its staff of advocates, and to conclude that they have done all that is necessary. But here is a practical point involved, and I have mentioned these facts to ebow the importance, as affecting the rights of the poorer and middle classes, of the proposal for estalliehing a single central court in stead of a number of local courts spread through the country. (Hear.) The population of Edinburgh and Leith is about one-twentieth of that of the whole of Scot land, so that they ought to have about one-twentieth of the divorces if the business of the courts were equally distributed. But by the retura contained in the report of the commissioners to which I have alluded, it appears that instead of one-twentieth, Edinburgh and Leith, without speaking of the neighbourhoad, furnish one-third of the whole of tho divorces that take place in Scotland. This shows that the question of the local courts is vital to the whole matter. Do not let me be told that this may be all very true ; that we can make these ceuite local afterwards. It is a clear axiom that we ought to avoid perpetual meddling with the law of marriage. We should establish what we think a good system, but not be continually worrying a subject of this kind with per petual changes. (Hear.) I would ask the house to con sider the number of questions that are ievelved—ques tions that are not to he regarded as of mere detail, but which, nevertheless, can only bo considered in committee, inasmuch as the opinion of members can only be given by means of changes proposed. If the right hon. gi.ntle man thinks that we have so little to discus be will be undeceived when we come to the second reading. I will refer shortly to some peiote of the utmost importance which must be discussed when we come to consider the bill itself. You have to consider whether are prepared to establish for England offhand, without inviry, but based upon the opinion of the house, a eytom which no other country has ever seen ; or whether you will adopt some one of those systems that have the sanction and the authority of previoue legislation—that is, whether you will extend the principle of dissolution of marriage to other causes besides adultery, which, iu the jeagment of men as wise as yourselv es , h ave b een held to be valid causes fair the diseointio n of the marriage tie ? (dear, hear.) There is one English authority that should in duce us to adopt that view —viz., the Reformation League upon which we shall have much to say when we cerne to the second riading of the bill. But let us 100 r for a moment at tEe inadmissibility Of that plea. The Refer mation League does not say you ought to have divorce for adultery only, but for adultery and a number of miler causes ; and where is the man who will ask us to pro ceed upon the authority of the Reformation League to give divorce for adultery and refuse it for those other causes which that authority recognises ? There is anoteer point in which the framers of this bill have overthrown the authority of the Reformation League. That procee is upon the principle of equality of rights between the two eels say subject under c ons id erat i on w id a d m i t of fir myself that on ever y occa ssie,x,:awahnedn the it, I will be here to assert that principle. (Cheers.) It is impossible not to do great mischief to begin now in the middle of the nineteenth century to undo for womankind that which Christianity has done f-er it and to say that that which shall auth rise a man to dismiss his wife shall not entitle the wile to dismiss her husband. (Loud cheers.) If there is one thing more palpable that another in reference to our religion, it is the coal that God Al mighty has placed upon th e equa li ty of man and woman. (Hear.) Teen there is the question, is adultery to be made a criminal offence ? Besides that and the other questions I have touched upon, as for instance—are we to have one central court only, and limit the facilities for divorce to London and its immediate neighbourhood— oms a whole questions w h en we t ouc h upon those subjects family o ichw f e dealt with in the numerous petition which have been presented to the house. (Hear ) it ie a much debated point whether we are bound to frame the legislation of this house upon the law of Scripture. That is a question upon which I will not presume now to enter—it is far too solemn io ba dis cussed on an occasion like the present—but by this bill we are treating with levity matters which de not belong to our functions. I do not Teak of the c )nsciences of the clergy, or the interest of the clergy. I speak of the re ligion we profess—(Dear) —and I do say it is a matter of deep consequence that we should take care that in our legislation upon this subject wedo not offer profanation t o the religious faith ewe entertain, by dealing with those sacred rites which came down to us with the authority of the Apostles themselves, as we would deal with some turnpike trust of board of health hill. (Hear.) Among a'l parties in this house, where all classes are represented it will, I am sure, be felt a matter of the utmost dn. culty to deal with the religious part of this question. I d,.) not assume that the religious part of the ques tion is to be conclusive in governirg rtur proceedings. Whether it is or is not I do not say—but you have es tablished in this country a system of civil marriage-- apart from the spec'al sanction of the Christian rsligion ; whether you choose to introduce as a counterpart of that civil marriage a civil divorce and re-marriage, is a ques tion of the utmost importance and gravity. I venture to say you cann-t pass this bill as it is, as regards the clergy. (Hear, hear.) I make the appeal to the bowie and the Government. Their own feelings must teach them that some alttration must necessarily be made in the bill in its religi , us bearing. 4, but I must say we ought not to be asked to deal with the important question involved in this bill for the first time on the 24th July. (dear.) The right hon. gentleman opposite has been found fault with for raising the question of delay. I think he has taken a wise and a judicious course. He did not wish to commit himself to an entire opposition to the bill, and he proposed that more time should be given for consi deration. I may be more opposed to the bill than he io on some points, but there are others upon which I am most atlX!0118 to keep my mind free, and I put it to the house whether at this period of the session it is not fair and just to raise the question of time, and to submit t iat question in a r)rm distinct and separate from the merits of the bill In such a form, then, when we go to the division on the right hoe. gentleman's motion, they would give no vote on the principle of the bill, but merely upon the question whether they ought ri:;t to have time for deliberation before they were called upon to decide upon a question of such delicacy and difficuhy. Mr. BOWYER * upported the motion of Mr. Henley, which he thought must recommend itself to the wisdom, good sense, and prudence of the house. He had looked through the bill to see what it contained, and the result was startling. There was one princirh of the bill which was most dangerous, and that was the principle of the dissolubility of marriage. The bill interfered with the criminal law. It creat:qi a new offence. E.r the fir , t time adul:ery was to be made a criminal offence. Then it proposed to make a change in the ecclesiastical juri•- prurience of the country, and to alter the must funda mental pornt of ecclesiastical law as it bore on the rela• tions of the state. Again, it altered the civil law of property in regard to the relations between husband and wile. Again, the biq decided a most important religious question; and that without the means for coming to a decision. The bill, be contended, contained matter for three if not for four bills, each of which would require mature deliberation and discussion in reference to its principle as welt as its details. But they had ad these important matters affecting the relations of society, the religious feelings of the people, and the criminal and ec clesiastical jerisprudence of the country jurealed toge ther in one bill, and that brought in on the 24th ef July. He was quite convinced that all the days remaining of the present session would be insufficient to discuss the details in committee, if they.do not wish to legislate rashly and dangerously. He urged upon the Govern ment to withdraw the bill, and reintroduce it early next session. (Hear, hear.) For himself, he objected to the principle of the bill, which he believed to be mischievous and fraught with evil. Before deoiding such a question, in which the divine law was involved, they ought to assemble the church and consult it on the matter. He thought, in not doing so, they were treating their church (to which he did not belong) very badly. (Hear, hear.) If they consulted the clergy they would ; he believed, see reason to doubt whether they were competent to pass such a measure. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the speeches which had followed Mr. Henley showed the propriety of proceeding to the discussion of the bill. There was but one great principle to be discussed in the bill—the great and important question of the dissolubility of marriage in this country as a part of the law of the land. (Hear.) Whether that was part of the law of the land, or might be part of the law of the land was the great question to be discussed. That the present state of things was most unsatisfactory no one could doubt. He believed, notwithstanding what was stated in that debate, that the opinion of the country was in favour of legislation on the subject. If evils existed in an aggravated shape, surely a bill which was calculated to meet them should be promptly dealt with. He objected to the course adopted by his right hon. friend, in interrupting the Attorney-General when he was about to state the ree e in favour of the bill ; and his right hon. friend had not only interrupted that explanation, but with the skill of a practised member of parliament, he had contrived to send out to the country notions and ideas with regard to the bill which were calculated to enlist an influential class in the country aganst the bill. He admired the skill of his right hen. friend—and he was well followed up by the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, especially as regarded the point that the *existence of lacal courts was threatened ; and if that notion got abroad, there wou ld b e en li s t e d against the measure the influence of all those who were in terested in those local juriscirtions. He thought that was not a fair way of meeting the nil, especially at its present stage. But he (the Solicitor-General) would assert that there was no foundation for the statement. What was the ground of that statement by his right hon. friend. He said that in three years there were 101 matrimonial suits, and of these 48 bad been decided in the local courts. But where they were heard, how they were distributed, who were the parties to them, and whether they were of the lower orders who it was supposed were to be deprived of the benefit of these courts by the bill, they die not know. But it was raid that such was the fluc tuating state of the mi n d o f t h e H ouse of Lords with regard to this measure, Meet it came to that house without the weight which entitled it to consideration. Now with all his partialities for the House of Commons, he could not agree with the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who had made so light of the discussions of House of Lords on this measure—these repeated discus sions following up the reports of commissions. The right houourable gentleman said that this question had not engaged the attention of the couutry, but he (the Solicitor-General) would say that it had engaged the attention of the country for years, and the discussions upon it in the House of Lords, supported ag they were by great lawyers, assisted by bishops on all ecclesiastical questions—these elaborate and repeated discussions in the House of Lords were not to be so lightly treated. He trusted the House would not agree in the statement of his right hon. friend, that the mind of the House of Lords was not settled on this question. If the objec tion that there was no time this session to discuss the details of the bill was to be taken, it ought to have been taken after the principle was affirmed by the second reading ; and the motion of his right hon, friend was at least premature. Even the points of detail which would require discussion would resolve themselves into a very few, and even the skill of his right hon. friend would not be able to extend them to more than six or seven. He trusted the house would say that it was right that the Attorney-General should be allowed to lay the bill before the heuse, and then the hon. and learned member for Dundalk might take the sense of the house on its principle. Lord J. MANNERS said that the Solicitor-General and the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had made a matter of accusation against his right hon. friend, that be rose at the moment of which he had given notice in Order to make his motion, and that it was not right in him to have interrupted the statement of the At torney-General. But those hon. members had overlooked the fact, that it was the avowed intention of his right hon. friend to prevent the Attorney General from enter leg into his explanation of the bill. The bon. and learned gentleman said that there was only one great principle involved in the bill ; and admitting for the sake of argument that that was so, yet they who thou g ht w ith him (Lord J. Man ners ) sa id that that principle was so great and important, was so deeply and so nearly inter woven with the feelings of the people of this country, that they could not allow it to be discussed at the fag-end of an exhausted ses-ion. The hon. and learned gentl matt denied that there was any feeling in the country against the bill, but that if there was any feeling, it was rather in favour of it ; but he would chalenge the hon. and learned gentleman to support his assertion by any one pe'ition which bad been presented to either house of Parliament. He (Lord J Manners) had that afternoon looked over the list of petitions, and he could not find one in favour of the bill—(bear, hear)—while numerous petitions emanating from those who were best entitled to the respectful attention of the house from their station, their ability, and their virtue, bad not only been pre sented, but continued to be presented in increasing num bers every day. The hon. and learned gentleman had sail that his right hon. friend stated that it was impossible to diecass the bill in such a manner as to pass it. His right hon. friend did not say that the government, which was said to possess the most absolute majority in that house since the time of Pitt, coal.) net force this or any other measure down the throats of the house ; hut his right hon. friend said that it was impossible, morally and physically, that the measure could be discuseeti with the care and attention to which it was entitled. The hon. and learned gentleman said that no informa tion had been afforded by his right hon. friend with rega- d to the local courts to which he had alluded ; but whose fault was that, unless it was the fault of the Govern ment, whose dirty it was to be furnished with every iti formation on the subject ; but it so happened that, in the report of the commission, it would be found that the cir cums'ances connected with every one of the 48 cases alluded to were stated. It appeare that even the law advisers of the Crown were not prepared, on the 24th of July, fully to discuss this measure which they wished the house to pass. If the Solicitor-General was deficient in *information on the subject, it was surely open to members of that house to say that they would not con sent to be dragged at the end of the session into a dis cussion on the most solemn subject which could occupy the-attention of a Christian Legislature. Those who thought with him said, take back your bill, and re-intro duce it in another session ; we do not wish to prejudice it by discussing its principle, but we will not in this way be forced, in the last moments of the session, into the consideration of a measure which the other house bad had ample time to consider, and the progress of which showed in the most unmistakeable manner that they en tertained no settled opinion with regard to it. He said take back the bill, and if they did not, they (the opposi tion) would assert their claim (and he believed they had the power to make good that claim) not to be called on, without due deliberation, to unsettle the law of Church and State, and the law of marriage, by a measure which was, in direct opposition to the revealed word of God. Lord STANLEY said that it was somewhat curious that those bon. members who asked the house for more time for deliberation with reference to this measure, were precisely those who implied that, as far as they themselves were concerned, all deliberation was supei &tie. (Hear.) He could understand the opposi tion of those who said that they had not made up their minds on the principle of this bill, and required time for further deliberation ; but be could not understand those who said that their minds were made up, and that they intended to oppose the bill in every stage, urging that they bad a right for further time for deliberation. They were told that they were now at the end of the session ; he wished that it could be said that they were —(hear)--but looking to the state of the business before the house and up stairs, he thought it would be found that they bad sufficient to occupy them yet for several weeks. Several committees which had been sitting on subjects of great importance had not yet made their re ports ; several others bad not yet completed the evidence before them ' while there were still a num b er o f elect i on petitions to be tried, and which it was not desirable to postpone to another year. However anxious they all might be to shorten the duration of the session, yet their duty to the public ought to induce them to recol lect that there bad been an interruption by two months of the ordinary business of the year. Then was it or was it not a fact, that this measure had not been before the public for a sufficient time to enable them to form an opinion on it I He could say nothing of the reports of commissions and committees, for though the subject had been much disnnesed by these bodies, the result of their discussions might not have passed into the hands of the public. But a bill similar to this had been introduced last year, which had been very fully discussed, and the measure bad received a full discussion in the present year, and had been amply considered by the highest authorities in the law and the churob, and whatever might be the ingenuity or skill of debate, he thought it would be difficult for any one to offer any suggestion which had not been considered in another place. The main reason, however, which ho would press on her Majesty's Government for persevering with this measure wes, that it was one rather of principle than of _detail. That which lay at the bottom of the opposition to this measure was a fundamental difference among members of that house and the public with regard to the theory and the subject of the measure, which declared that one broad prin ciple was in issue, and that was whether by the law of the land marriage should be dissolved in any case or not. That was the bread and general principle, and it was one on which a majority of the house had already formed an opinion, and it was not likely that that opinion could be much changed by any debates on the question. It was neither customary or convenient to go into a detailed discussion of the principles of a bill which was not be fore the house, but as the subject had been alluded to, he would say one word with regard to the opinion enter tained by the public on this question. It was stated that a number of petitions had been presented, chiefly by the clergy, in opposition to the measure, and on referring to them, he found that the great mass of them turned Ile t so much on the general principle as on one clause'of the. bill y whic4 imposed a particular duty on the clergy of the church. That was, no doubt, a question for discus sion by the house, but it referred to the detail, and not to the principle of the measure. As to ths &et, that the movement in opposition to the measure was more active than that in supper t of it, that as explainable, simply by the ciroumsiance that the bib hal been taken up by the Government, had been passed through that portion of the legislature where it was supposed to be mat in danger, and therefore those who supported it had little fear of failure, while those who were oppesed to it were stimulated to more active exertions, even by the probe eility that these xertione would be unavailing. Look ing to the business of the session, it was etear that they had not so much to show for the time which they had sat as to be able to afford to throw away the labour which bad already been expended on this bile. Unless this bill and another relating to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction be came law, they would have nothing to show in the way of administrative reform alter several months passed in legislation. It was his belief that a large boty of persons in the country would see with regret and disappoint. ment the decision of the House of Commons and the Government, if that decision should be to abandon the measure. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NAPIER, said if the only question which was to be discussed this session was whether marriage was dis soluble or not on the ground of adultery, he should be prepared to give his opinion that it it was. (Hear, hear.) There were many members of the Roman Catholic church whese opinions would be most valuable, and he should have been very glad if he had been able to ascertain the views of the bishops and clergy of his own church, and the opinions of his c instituents, whom he was generally in the habit of consulting. The question was a most d licate and difficult one ; and Sir James Macintosh, in discussing it, said :—" To make the dissolution of mar riage alike accessible to al! is one of the objects to which, in great cities and in high civilised communities, it is hardest to point out a safe rule." Now, supposing the bill to pass in its present shape, how would the law stand In Scotland, parties who committed adultery were not allowed to marry again. This bill would permit them to do so. In Ireland the dissolubility of marriage was objected to. In England, parties guilty of adultery would be permitted to marry again. To one clause of the bill he entertained the strongest objection —he meant the clause which compell e d clergymen whe entertained con scientious scruples on the subject to marry parties who had been guilty of adiWtery. Such a proceeding woul be towards them an intolerable tyranny, and to that part of the bill he should give his moat uncompromising oppo sition. The house was called upon, not to decid on an abstract question, but to consider a great social problem. The measure involved questions of the greatest gravity, and although he approved of a considerable portion of it, be agreed with many men of great learning and autho rity that other portions were extremely ol jectiorable. He submitted that at that late period of their session, when their "days were numbered," the government ought not to press forward the bill, but to let it stand over to ano ther session, when more time could be bestowed upon its consideration. The ATTORNEY -GENERAL said from the speeches which had already been delivered he was' perfectly con- Iwinced that no set of men were more prepared to discuss the question now under consideration than those members who had already addressed the house. And yet, what was the na ere of their appeal ? Give ut more time. (Laughter.) Did the right hon. member for Oxfordshire require more time ? Was he ignorant of the subject ? What was the plea of the right hon. and hafted gentleman who had just spoken ? "Let me consult my constituents"—who appeared to have been so indifferent to the subject that they had not even communicated the.r wishes to him. (Laughter.) The right bon, and learned gentleman appeared desirous also of consulting his spi ritual advisers, but how long did be rquire for the per forrnance of that great conscientious duty I Then the nGble lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) who protested against having the measure forced down his throat, de cidedly objected to stopping to deliberate and consult, although he was prepared to stop till doomsday to sup port and carry on a dogged opposition t th e measure. (Laughter.) These were specimens of the appeals which had been made to the house to put off till to-morrow that which had been called for year after year until there was not a writer, not a jurist, not a foreign °beim v. r of our manners and constitution who had not pointed out these matters as a blot and disgrace to to them.(Hear.) And yet, because it was the 24th of July the house was called upon to refute to discuss this important subject of domestic legislation. Now, what was the proper course of proceeding with respect to this measure ? If it had originated in that house, hon. gentlemen would have said it was indecent to bring it forward there for the first time ; that it ought to have been submitted to the House of Lords, where the advice of the bench of bishop, and those most competent to consider the matter would have been obtained. Now that course had been adopted, and the result of the deliberations of their lordships was before the house. He would appeal from the right hen. member for Oxfordshire to the right hon. member for Buckitighamshire—the candour of whose mind he well kneir. That right hon. gentleman had deprecated the dissolution of Parliament, because it would cause the loss of a year's legislation. The right hon. gentleman did not desire to be a true prophet in that respect, and her Maj esty's Government had dons their best to ensure the failure of his prophecy. There was abundant time for deliberation, and he called upon the right hon. gentleman to appeal to his friends not to impede the progress of legislation, but to remain for a short time, to consider the subject. It was not an appeal to new principles. It embraced eothiug but what- had been known to the law of Eng land for 200 years. Why, be asked, should the house spend its time in deliberating whether it would delibe rate or not ! If he had been allowed to - proceed, he should have cencheied his remarks ling before the hour at which they had now arrived. (A. laugh.) Ho was confident that one-half the time which had been given to the discussion of the Testamentary Bill would be more than sufficient for a full and saiesif ctory discussion of the principles involved in the present measure, and trusted that they would agree to perform the work of the day, and not in a spirit of indolence p istpoue its consideration until another sessien. (Hear.) Mr. MALINS said his decided opinion was that there was not abundance of time to discuss the bill, and that it ought not to be pressed on the attention of the house at that late penol of the session. It was quite impot- Bible to proceed with the second reading at that late hour (half-past 10 o'clock). The debate must necessarily be adjourned—till when I Monday was bespoken for th Indian debate, which might occupy more than one night. Thursday was fixed for another great debate—on the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. On Friday the esti mates canie on. This debate cou'd not be rammed be fore Monday the 3d of August. How long did the noble lord mean to keep them there, with their iatelhictual faculties subdued and worn out by intersse labour and the hot weather ? (Laughter.) There were several c mittees sitting, and he fearlessly asserted that no man was equal to such intense work in the present state of the weather. (Renewed laughter.) This bill had peen shown to involve questions of the utmost importance and difficulty, which were sufficient to engage the best energies of the house. It was said that they had the bebefit of the discussions elsewhere ; but the measure had been so often discussed in the other house that the public attention was only Sited on it after it came down to that house. A document had been placed in their hands, containing the prote.t 0500 clergymen against the bill. Surely they ought to be listened to on a measure which involved the sacredness of the marriage tie. The House of Lords bad devoted two months to the consideration of the bill. He felt overwhelmed with its importance, and was convinced that it could not receive sufficient consideration this year. If they were kept there till October they could not discuss it properly. (A laugh.) It was said that our existing divorce law was a blot on the statute-book, be cause a rich man could get a divorce and a noor man could no - . (Hear.) Riches did not produce all 'blessings, and perhaps it was an advantase to the poor that they had not such facilities for obtaining divorce. (Hear.) He would not be a concurring party to discussing a measure like this in the month of August, and it would not be discussed sooner. If the other hence devoted two months to the discussion something like the same time would be necessary here. As this was the first time the measure had been discussed in that house, it would be much better to re-introduce it at the beginning of the session, and then it would be seen that the discussions in the other house had not been thrown away The Attorney-General asked them to abandon their right of discussion because the bil had been fully discussed elsewhere. Seeing the universal feeling in the house against proceeding with the bill—(no, no)—at all events a most strong feeling on that side the house against.primeeding with the bill, he appealed to, the noble lord at the bead of the Government to withdraw it, unless he could ensure them four or five consecutive nights for its discussion. Viscount PALMERSTON—I roust say that the pro ceeding which has taken place this night is one of the the most exhwerdinary that I ever knew, and one of the greatest departures from the ordinary proceedings of this house. (Hear.) It is undoubtedly common, ehtn ger,- tlernea object to a bill on the second rea ring, instead of objecting to the principle, or negativing the bill, to pro. pose a postponement of the second reading for six months or some shorter period ; but I do not recolltct an instance wheu those who objected to a bill, in teed of allowing the member having charge of it to state to the house the grounds on which he submits it for their approbation, have stepped in and anticipated the die. cassia'', and Post-ad of hearing one eyllahle of the motive on w hich the bill is founded, havecontended that it must be postponed for a period beyond that to which the ses siou is calculated tu last. I Bey t hat that is a proceeding unusual, discourteous to those having charge of the bill, and not in conformity with the ordinary practice of par liament. But it is a proceeding which negatives the very grounds that are ltid for it; because, while those who op pose this bill affect to say that they are not prepared to discuss it, and only wish for time, it is quite cuanifest, not only from the motion itself, but from the speeches by which it has been supported, that they are against the bill on principle. And much fairer it would have been, much more honourable to them, and much more in accordance with their real feeling, if instead of a miser able motion for putting off the bill for a month, they bad opposed the bill on principle and negatived the motion for the second reading in the usual way. The pretence that there in not time to consider the bill is too shallow to be listened to amornent. For whom is that delay demanded? FJr those who wish to oppose the bill, and have net had time to consider it and make up their minds on the subject. Those who have heard the speeches of Mr. Henley, Mr. Glad:tone, and Mr. Bowyer, will, I think, be of opinion that they have deeply and maturely cAlsidered the matter, that their minds are full of argu ment on the subject, that they are stored with every ob jection that can be urged to the bill, and are as ready now as they could be if 12 months were given them for consideration to discuss the measure on its principle an.l in all its details. Therefore thatfor them delay is demanded is a pretext, mo,t futile, and not founded upon any grounds. But is it for the country that delay is demanded, in order that public opinion may be matured on the subject ? Why, scehnew that the measure has been before the not for weeks and months bat for years, and that every man lik e ly t o g i ve attention to the subject bag now made up his mind on the nieasure. (Hear, hear.) Bat the very argurnetts which they use agrjrit tit cis i'rove their aseertio They tell us there are petitimi g i against the bill from 6,000 clergymen, from every part 0 the country. (Hear ) Are those petitions, then, P g. sented without any knowledge of the bill or cousiderra Lion of its contents. (Cheers.) The only taaeraitel appears to be the constituents of Mr. Napicr, whh - ,ba le not thought it necessary to instruct him on this hill • and he has not thought it necessary to ask them wha t he should say a b ou t i t. (Great ltughter ) Is the bill new to the house ? Does any member who would b e likely to take lair. in this disces s i oe pretend to say th ief f he has not w a t c h e d t h e .proceedings of the Hots" Lerch; on the subject, which have been going on for g° long ? Has not the bill been lying a full month on the table of this house, giving opportunity to everybolii t° examine it with the utmost minuteness, and to make°,l his mind as to its principl e an d d eta il s ? And is t he bl of such enormous magnitude ? On the contrary, it h 'l comparativel short one, and its p rov i s i ons ' re contsin e in a comparatively small number of clauses. I say, th e : that the motion for delay is a s h a ll ow pretence, —4eto those who make it wish to concea l t h e i r oppos ition f the measure under the mask of delay ; and this is 0 , 1 0 that they are conscious public opinion is against 010 The country is for som e measnre o f t h is sort, andta measure is one that o ug ht t be considered and d e ' berately agreed to. (Hea r .) Te en M r. Mains tells 0, with that power wh ic h h e possesses, and talea, ing with that physical vi gour w i t h w hi c h he a lw!l a a addresses the house—th a t our b o di es are exhauste d, g" crar minds are prostrat e d w ith labour. (Laughterr) Why, sir, the hon, and l earne d gent l eman is a by ,'°o example to the contrary. He is one of those who sit t h thoroughly exhausted by the labours of the session t he t he is totally unable to cons id er one more bill. (Oef s aa But the honourable and l earne d mem b er is Pe rm Zt anxious to take advantag e o f th at h ealth and vigilef which we are all so Os I to see him p ossess i n som e ot o sphere, and that may accoun t f or the impatience Wi which be is looki ng t o th e term i nation of tb6e session. (Laughter.) But I do trust that the ligo.1 1 1 will take a more seri o u s v i ew o f th ese matters, and `gf not be led away by a pp ea l s t o the almanac:—that ,„' will not think that one month, or another, is onlY,‘;:d able of being devoted to ma tt ers o f i mportanca —tha' will not be frightened by the names of Jely and A u tO —because this is a measure of great importance to wv e the country has b een l oo ki ng w i th anxiety and interso —a measure that c anno t b e re f use d simply by teiliosq that as we are a t th e en d o f J uly, and August is fgagt",, proaching, we m us t suspen d our deliberations. (eds: hear.) The hon. member asked me bow long I pf°P, that the house s it. I would propose that the b°osl should sit as long as may be necessary t o dispose of business before Q. (H ear, h ear.) I remember to hiAdo sat in this house in th e middh of September; bet not conceive that it will be necessary to cmtihne, session so long. But I say it i s trifling with our °,l ti t and with the great intere s t s o f the country to tolled that, because it happens to. be the 24th of July, vie b'c not able to take into consideratio n a measure to cy, the country has been long looking with great a c Set which is of the utmost importanc e , an d w hi c h bas e rr occupied the minds of men who attend to the coas t et tion of these subj ec ts. (H ear , h ear .) If thi s bill fi t , now brought in for the first time, not having beer': 1 0 1 l sented to either house before—if at this period 0 ' a t tve for the first time proposed a bill of such great in 3 P; O l l ante, I should admit that the arguments against us 6e it be possible. B u t we are on l y ca lli ng upon t h e hal': l e discuss a measu re w hi c h h as b een well sifted 00 cussed in the o th er h ouse . A n d when we are 0'11)0. the other house has been unstable, and that they di altered their minds on different details, I say 6 0 °0 1 1 missions have paved the way for ns to consider d it points, and have rendered it more easy for gentlto le make up their minds upon them ; the argninel9 there upon particular pints, and that is i- o c!' why gentlemen may more eas il y com e to a C. " ftr* sion. I do therefore entreat the house not t ° , 6 o get the high duties i m p ost d upon it b y i ts constitt" I do entrt at them to recollect that we sit here el, merely to consider whether it is more convenfeot journ on a day in J u ly or a d ay i n A ugust, or whciiat; hot weather er cold weath er ma y b e more co° ,te with the intedectual exertions of th e h on . and I`,:d! member for \Val in ;ford, but t o cons id er t h a t t ,,, "i f tl? grave and serious question, and that if we pilt % e ft measure simply bec a use we d o no t c h oose t o cehsidotir the country will think that we are neglecting hu a r et O l e and betrayi ng th e t rus t repose d i n us, and ,t":", 1, character of this hou s e wi ll su ff er ma t er i a lly l i e' opinion of the public (Hear, hear.) I will n ° ' r shr enter into the me r it s o f th e quest i on. The Mtcf General will be p re pa re d, w h en h e moves the Pe ep„e,„ reading of the bill, t o s t a t e i n d eta i l all the reasons on which the measure is founded. n°YO , house Lear the ground on which it is proposed. to ol let the house shrink f rom th e di scussion of a vier 0 1 t deeply affectin g th e i n t erests o f the country. -11.1 i, all, do not let them s h r i n k from t h e sha d ow o f a P'ls on which this motion has been supported—that 1 /. 6 ; 17 hot time to consider a measure w hi c h th ose mall objection show that th e y are f u ll y pre pared .to 1 00 1 1 now or any other day which the house way Ch ° appoint. (Cheers.) The house divided, and the numbers were-- For the postponement - • 13 0 , j1 Against it Lord PALMERSTON said that at this time o ', :Jr, it wool i hardly be l a i r t o hi s ho n. and learned fri'd.sll to the house to go on w i t h t h e seeani reading t°;'h , His hon. and learned friend would naturally : l ot'', state at some l eng lh hi s view on the subject, anuoir fore be proposed to take the second reading the Thurbday. po Mr MAL: -, cle r ti ' ALINS asked whether he was to un" - 0 - 0$ that the Protiate and Administr a ti ons Bill would 00 proceeded with o n TkLurAday? Lord PALMERSTON said the governmeo"vid take this bill first on Thursday, and the Probate Friday. . The second readi ng was accor di ng l y postpeni cl fV4 ILLICIT DISTILLATION (IRELAND) ' h al, hh Tuo house th en wen t i nto comm i ttee on tbi3 otlvri when a few c l auses h a d b een gone through, a fter r e discussion, the Chairman was ordered . t° progress. SUPLY. The replrt o f supp l y wa P s brought up and r , e °6 13 1. 0 1) ' . CANADA AND NEW BRUNSWICIC DARIES This hill was read a 0)4 , 1 time and passscl• COUNTY COURT JUDGES' SAL A RIES This Lill was read a eecond time, 131 1 '' 0 i OATHS VALIDITY ACT AMENDMENT dia Mr J. A. SMITH postponed the second to ,„ 0 1 , this bill t o W e d nes d ay nrar. tw, The house adj ourne d at twenty m i nutes to tfi° ow spent the rock upon which Commodore Keppers ship had been lost, and from that report he thought that in all probabili y C_mmldore Keppel would be acquitted by the court mhr ial. The motion for the adjournment to Munday was then agreed to. LEITRIM ELECTION• The SPEAKER informed the house that he had re ceived a letter from Mr. Coppock, stating that it was not intended to proceed with the petition against the return for this county. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. Upon the order for the second reading of this bill being read, Mr. HENLEY, in rising to move that the order be postponed until that day month, said that it was not his intention to raise any question upon the principles of the bill, but to apply himself only to those matters which would show that by adopting his resolution the conve nience of the house and the advantage of the public would be secured. The house would recollect that, as the law at present stood, persons who required a disso lution of marriage were obliged to go through three dis tinct operations, one proceeded with in the ecclesiastical court, a second in a court of common law, and the third being obtained from the House of Lords by way of pri vilege. Such being the state of the law, the Govern ment, in 1853, issued a commission to inquire into the present state of the law of divorce a vinculo matrimonii. ' The commissioners met, and agreed to resolutions. In the following year legislation commenced in the House of Lords. A bill was embodied in the house, and passed; whether it was ever read in the House of Commons or not he did not know. Nothing, however, came of it, and so the matter rested until the present year, when the bill which hon. members were asked to consider was intro duced, and passed through the House of Lords. It was not necessary for him to call attention to the gravity of this question—it was one of the greatest importance, not only on account of the number of persons directly coming under its influence, but because what was done upon it might tend to weaken the solemnity and firmness of the marriage tie throughout the length and breadth of this land. With the view of showing how impressions had varied on the subject, he would proceed to contrast the recommendations of the commissioners and the two bills which had been agreed to by the other house with each other. In the first place, the report of the com missioners recommended as a tribunal for the considers tion of matrimonial cause+ a court consisting of three permanent judges. In 1854 it was proposed to throw this matter upon the Court of Chancery. The present bill proposed the creation of a new court, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the two Lord Chief Justices, and the Lord Chief Baron, and the judge of tine Court of Probate, of whom three were to be a quorum. With regard to the subject of appeal, the commissioners re commended a general appeal to the House of Lords. Ia the measure of 1854 the appeal was to be similar to the appeals from the Court of Chancery, and therefore with an ultimate appeal to the Lords. At present it was pro posed that there should be no appeal on questions of fact, but upon questions of law an appeal was given to the House of Lords. Again, the commissioners, after considerable deliberation, carne to the conclusion that questions of fact should be left to the judges, and that a jury should ant be summoned. In 1851 the House of Lords was still of opinion that there should be no jury. When the present bill was first brought forward, there was to be a jury—not of right in every case, but only where, in the discretion of the judge, it was thought fit to summon one. During the discussion of the subject the mind of the house underwent a change ; and as the bill came down, it gave a jury as a matter of right. The house would see from this the diversity of opinion which had prevailed on this subject ; and in the face of that diversity he would ask hon. gentlemen whether at the period of the session at which they had arrived it was at all likely that the bill could receive that attention which its gravity demanded ? The diversity of view to which lee had just referred only affected the subject of jurisdiction ; he would proceed to show that the same state of things existed with regard to the subject to be adjudicated upon. The bill dealt not only with the subject of divorce a vinculo matri monii, but also with what it was pleased to call judicial separation a state of things better de scribed as divorce a mensa et thoro. The commissioners thought that divorce a mensa et thoro should follow gross cruelty, conjugal infidelity, and wilful desertion, the latter also being provided for in the alternative by a decree for alimony. In 1854, desertion for three years was made one of tne grounds of this divorce. Then carne the bill of this year, which fixed tha period of desertion at two years. The bill of 1857 also contained a very curious provision, the practical results of which he thought would be more awkward than its proposers seemed to imagine. Tnis bill gave the wife, upon deser tion by the husband, the right to her earnings as against him and his creditors. Tois right was to be secured by the decision of one magistrate, from whom an appeal wonld lay to two. Both the oide—that of 1857 as well as that of 1854—fixed the ground of diveroe a vincino if applied for by the husband upon adultery only. With regard to the wife, the commissioners recommended that this species of divorce should be granted to the wife in cases of " aggravated enormity "—a phrase which they explained as including incest and bigamy. The measure of 1854, on its introduction, confined the remedy as re garded women to the same grounds as those fixed by the commissioners, and they increased the grounds of divorce so that they included incestuous adultery, unnatural offences, or attempts to commit them, while they omitted bigamy. The measure of 1857 gave the right of divorce to the woman in the following cases :-Ist Incestuous adultery; 21. Bigamy; 3d. Adultery, with gross cruelty ; and 4th, Adultery. with desertion for two years. Here were most important variations; and aga n, as regarded these, he woul 1 ask the house if at this time of the year so important a matter, upon which so many opinions might , after great deliberation, be formed, could be considered with any good result? He would text refer to a question upon which the commis sienersgave no opiaioo, the action of trim. con. As the present bill came do wn to them the action was abolished, but in getting at this result great uncertainty of purpose had been abown. At first the action was to be retained, but to be brought after instead of before the divorce; then it was proposed to make criminal conversation a misdemea nour ; ultimately a fine was propose I and the action abolished. Now he would beg to call the attention of the house to the fact that, as be had already contended, there were but few cases coming within the scope of this bill. Taking the average of the years from 1834 to the present time, he found that the number of cases of di vorce a vinculo averaged only three per year. He had thus called the attention of the house to the position in which the matter stood. He could get no information as to the present average of suits, but by the report pub- Hebei 1332 he found that the whole number of causes in all the courts of England for 1827.23-29 was 101, and of that number there were 16 in the Arches C suet of Lon don, and 42 in the Coneistory Court ; that was to nay 58 altogether in London, and 43 in the country; so that by the bill 4-sths of the jurisdiction would be swept away and no remedy provided for the people. He had now stated the reasons which induced him to come to the conclusion that if Government persisted in going on with this bill, there must be lengtheeed discussion in committee on the points he had mentioned. Petiti ons had been presented signed by 6 ; 000 clergymen, so that it was quite clear that the interest taken in the subj ct was very great, and in the subject was very great, and if the discussion should be iudecently cut short by the termination of the session, they ran the risk not only of shocking the high feeling of the country, but of finish ing with a crude and ill-digested measure. Toe Govern ment could, he felt n have no interest in the matter except to produce a good bill ; there were very few parties that could be iejared by delay, while much good might result from their proceeding with circumspection. On all these grounds, he implored the Government to acquiesce in his motion, that the second reading be postponed for one month. Sir G. GREY thought the course taken by the right hon. gentleman most unusual and inconvenient. When the order of the day was read, the Attorney-Ceeneral rose (14 - r. RENLET: I did not see him)—Yes, he rose to propose the second reading, intending to make a complete statement, not only of the principles of the bill, but of the grounds upon which the Government asked for is second reading thiisessioe.But the right hon. gentleman interposed with is motion which was equivalent to put ting it off for another session, and would be the same in result as the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dundalk, from identity in opinion with whom the right hon. gentleman endeavoured to guard himself. The right hen. gentleman avoided touching on the princi r le of the bill, but he had done what was still more objectionable, leaving his opinion as to principle uncertain while be Ca tered into all the details, which could only properly be discussed in committee. He could now address hirnee to the objections of the right hon gentleman, the first of which was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. The right hon. gentleman asked them not hastily to le i gislate on a subject of gravity and importance, as if this were the first time the sufiject had been under discussion, and that they were about to legislate without previous inquiry. But the right hon. gentleman himself admitted that there had been repeated inquiries, that the bill had been several times before Parliament, that it had under gone deliberate investigation, and that some improve ment had resulted in matters of detail. He thought that, on the right hon. gentleman's own shoeing, they were in full possession of the provisions of the bill, and there fore quite in a condition to invite the House of Commons to give its assent to the principle by passing the second reading, while, if they postponed it, the right hen. gen tleman who now urged that three measures had already been rejected, would come back next session with a stronger argument, as he would then be able to add a fourth to the list. The other objection was that they were near the end of the session. He did not think it signified at what period of the year a subject was considered, pro vided there was a sufficient attendance of members, and, without appealing to that particular period of the even ing at which the benches were usually thin—(a laugh) —he thought that the general attendance just now had nothing in it that indicated a want of interest in the busine-s of legislation. The attendance recently had been as good as at any former period of the session, and the division lists showed a very fair average of members. Her Majesty's Government had deemed it their duty to propose this bill to Parliament, it had received the deliberate attention of the other house, and it would be a matter of deep regret it, in consequence of the reason assigned by the right hor. gentleman, the ecandak which every one confe=sed, should be perpetuated for another year. (Hear.) They, (the Government) earnestly hoped that the right hon. gentleman would allow the bill to be read a second time. Let them have the prin c.pal fairly before the house, and let them not have a discussion which, at that moment, must be incomplete. He hoped that the house would read the bill a second time, and proceed with the details, so as t h at a remedy might be applied to the scandals existing in the law, and that the present opportunity might nut be lost of eMet ng a reformation which on all hands was most earnestly desired. Mr. GLADSTONE—My right hon. friend does not, t appears, feel the force of the objections which have been urged by the right hon. member for Oxfordshire. He thinks it impossible that the scandals in the existing marriage law should be continued for another year, but I hardly know to what scandals my right hon. friend alludes. If he speaks of the defective state of our law with re3pect to the protection of wives and husbands respectively as to their earnings in case of separation, I admit the scandal, but tbat scandal requires a different. remedy, and is not, as I conceive, affected by the motion of the right hon. mewls it for Oxfordshire. If the Govern. ment really aims at doing what the people of this coun try really do desire, namely, obtaining better protection for themselves and their families in case of the miscon duct of husband or wife respectively, then, I say, let my right hon. friend make us that offer—let him propose the simple, easy portion of his enactments having refer ence to this subject, and the scandals of the marriage law in England may all be remedied during the present session without difficulty. That portion of the subjen would not lead us to the rocks and shoals and quick sands which encompass the rest of the measure. But my right hon. friend bad perhaps in view another de scription of scandal, which I admit exists, although its importance has been enormously exaggerated, namely, the scandal that persons possessed of a certain amount of property can get a dissolution of marriage, while nn body else oan. This is a scandal—l do deny not it—(hear, hear)—which deserves the grave consideration of the house as to what manner it may dealt with ; but surely there is no overpowering necessity for dealing with it at the present moment. (Hear, hear.) The necessity does not arise in the recess, because it relates to Acts of Par liament, and Parliament may very well consider in ano ther session what is to be done with the law of marriage ; but I do hope that my right hon. friend will notsay that this scandal constitutes a matter of very grave public importance. The course taken by the right bon. mem ber for Oxfordshire is in my opinion a most legitimate course. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says that he feels in his own mind a real difficulty as to what is to be done in this matter. He does not appear t deny that the whole question of the state of the law of marriage may justify the consideration of Parliament, but my rigut hon. friend, suspecting the right hon. gen tleman of a latent determination to oppose everything that may be proposed, puts on his motion a construction it was not intended to bear. Now, is it not a possible state of things that there may be many persons in this house who do feel a difficulty as to the course that ought to be taken in this matter ? (Hear.) We must all be aware that it would be impossible to exaggerate the difficulties of the case, and are we to be so presump tuous as to think that in a moment we can see our way through these difficulties, or be so debased in our notion, of public duty, as to think it justifiable to deal with this great and sacred snbject, in any of the ordinary modes of Parliamentary operation ? There is one consolation in approaching this subject, and that is that it has no connection with the existence of any Government, or the principles of any party. It is a matter in respect to which there are obligations affecting us in common as Chris tians and legislators, and which have no connection with political views or obligations, and therefore I trust that my right hon. friend will not ascribe views which he himself disclaims to the right hon. member for Oxford shire. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman wishes for time to determine on his course, but my right hon. friend says, " No, you must vote without consideration." I protest against that mode of argument, which, coming from so high an authority as the Secretary of State, brings the question out of the atmosphere in which it ought to he discussed, into the ordinary foul and fetid atmosphere of political and party motive. (Hear.) I frankly own that I do not entertain any doubt on the main question involved in the present bill—l mean as to the true interpretation of the Christian law of marriage ; but at the same time I make for myself the same petition as that of the right horV, gentleman. I wish the legislation may not be adapted to my view of Christian doctrine, but to the general wants and exigencies of the country. I say that we should have the ordinary means of testing those wants and exigencies, by giving every opportunity for deliberation. In my opinion the sentiuients of the people of this country, of the parties most interested, namely, the clergy, and of members of Par.iarnent—all import ant elements in the mass of public opinion —should have full opportunity for expression. I do not come here with a cut and dry system of opinion, but to do my duty as a member of Parliament, according to the best arrange ment that the case will permit, and I cannot properly determine on that arrangement if the discussion be now precipitated. My right hon. friend says that the attend ance is such as to leave no room for apprehension that the measure will not be fairly discussed. Now, if I thought that the present attendance in this house were the at tendance of members waiting to dispose of divers bills, I should agree with my right hon. friend, but no one knows better than my right hon. friend that it is not the bills that secure the present attendance. There is a question coming on next Monday which has much to do with the attendance of members, there is a political crisis impending on the next two or three days, and a possible collision be tween the two houses of Parliament. Tnere is also a question relating to the compensation of certain eccle siastical officers which has not yet been disposed of by the Attorney-General, and which has much more to do with the attendance of members in town thaa the Divorce Bill. I believe that for the next few days members will keep togetberto discuss the Indian mutiny and the griev ances of Doctors' Commons, but that when these two questions are out of the way, the 40 gentlemen holding office, and about 40 volunteers of unusual zeal, will be the whole representation of the House of Commons to dispose of the Divorce Bill. Ido not appeal on this point t• argument. I appeal to what is better. My right hon. friend says that the rights on. memberforOxfordshire bee adopted an unusual course. It may be an unusual course, but it is called for by uotnual circumstances, and I ask my right bon. friend and the Attorney-General to let we know on what occasion a bill of this nature, magni tude, and gravity was ever before submitted to Parlia ment the first time for consideration on the 24th of July ? The Secretary of State says we ought to take the various discussions in the H ,u-e of Lords as a proof of the maturity of this measure, but he entirely misunder stood the right bon. member for Oxfordshire. Ii the succession of discussions bad moved in one line of pro gress, then there might be something to reckon when the bill came to tois house, but I take the case to be exactly the reverse ; the upshot of the statement of the right hon, member for Oxfordshire I take to be the re verse, and that the di-cue ions base not exhibited one tied rm line of progress, but a fl nmating, " wobbling" movement, iudicating the absence of clear conviction or fixed principles ; and, if that be true, the multitude of discussions el a %Isere and the various alte rations are valuable to show that the principle is yet un solved, and that we go into the debate wite.out any as sistance from those who have preceded us. I must also say that this is the fist time in which the Heine of Com mons bas been called ou to entertain the subject of the dissolution of marriage. It is true that commissions have been issued by both houses, and the measure has been discussed by the House of Lords, but that discussion is of very little practical importance. Acc.irdiog to my experience, nothing is practically before the country un til it comes to toe House of Commons. No doubt the bill has been ably discussed in the House of Lords, but the country t'iok no notice whatever of these debates. I am not offering a mere arbitrary opinion, but giving the results of experience. There were no petitions dent to the House of Lerde, nor was any anxiety exhibited out of do re. There were, to be sure, a couple of stray pamph lets on ore side or the other, but, mark, what was the case when the bill came to thellouse of Commons? From that day our t tole has groaned wile an increasing num eer of petitions. In the Lords there was no demonstra tion on the part of the clergy, but no w, sir, there has been put into your hands a declaration, wh ch had ben prepared in le or 12 days, which now has the signatures of 6,000 clergymen, and is receiving hundreds of addi tional signatures every day. Neither are those signing of one party in the church, but appear to represent gene rally the views of the clergy on this subject. Toerefore, t h e fact is, that it is only when the bill comes down to this house that the country begins to believe that the matter is really one for legislative enactment, and I must say that it is not very diffisult to understand why the country should be sceptical as to these changes in the law of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We havecalled " Wolf" too often during the last few years, so that the. introduc tion of b lls for ref arming ecclesiastical courts and testa mentary jurisdiction is looked upon as mere formula, to be subsequently as formally withdrawn, and therefore is there a rooted scepticism in the mind of the country. At all eveuts there can be no doubt bet that the last two or three weeks have given evidence of a strong feeling in the country. Two petitions have been sent to me, one of which says it has been signed by every person of mature age io the parish, and ano.iher by every churchman and dissenter. I do not urge these as a reason why the bill should be rsjected, but as showing that there is a feeling abroad which should be treated with deep respect by the house and the Government, and that we should take no step in such a measure without having taken every pre caution to enable us to arrive at a just conclusion. The right hon. member f r Oxfordshire is accused of dealing with the details of this bill. I know not on what ground nor how he could have taken a different course. He had endeavoured to show that there was a mass of work to be done, mid he wishes that we should do it in a work manlike manner. We must not proceed in a hasty or slovenly manner, for we are playing with edge tools, and something perhaps sharper, fur we pierce the heart of the country to the quick when we approach such a sub ject a 8 the lawof marriage. I want time to discuss points of importance, and notwithstanding the anathema of my right hon. friend I must refer to some of those points on the present occasion, seeing that we are summoned on the 24th July, against all preeedent, to enter for the first time on a a question of first-rate importance. In the first place, it must be recollected that the proposal made to us is not only inconsistent with our system of law, but is a proposal to adopt a new system of law, entirely without pracedeat in the legislation of any country. If the bill gave but two alternatives —one, the indissoluble mar riaee, to which we have adhered since England was England ; the other, dissoluble marriage, well understood, carefully limited, sustained by the clear au thority of learned men, and the legislation of other cams- tries—the ground would be much clearad and simplified; but there is not a country which has legislated with a view to make marriage dissoluble which has legislated in the same manner. The proposal is novel, not only to the English law but to the law of Christendom. It is ono for which we cannot find a precedent in the custom of any country. No country has ever made marriage dissoluble that has not made it dissoluble on other principles, and . . more largely than you are going to do it now. It may be said that this is a proof of your moderation. Ido not dispute the moderation of the framers of the measure, I do not dispute the moderation of the commissioners from whose recommendations it has emanated. It may be a proof of their moderation, but I am not here to bring an indictment against them for want of moderation on the one band, or to praise them for moderation on the other, Country Markets. LIVERPOOL--JULY 24. The few millers and dealers at our Corn Elc ° ': § 4o l morning were earn es t b u y ers o f w h eat for the R9',-rio'o sumption, and m a d e a f a i r b usiness at t h e fall fa 0,11 Tuesday last. In some instances an a Ivan" o. o d P A rl ti per bushel was sanctioned. Flour was better , 3 ,, e a ch Ir itit well sustained. Indian corn, beans, and I.f a - v 3 our l i i manded full quotations. Barley is not yet i li u ,;t I ° our miller.;. Oats and oatmeal dull of Bale, u" in price. WAKEFIELD—JULY 24. ( le • Pi f Fine fresh qualities of English wheat wer e 20 r oo f , mand at is per qr. decline, but th ere ' Was wore le e th •Ti at the Leeds market on Tuesday. Other ki° ge t/ difficult to move. Oats, beans, and other articles vi ochaAa;nveeoradaise, prices 3l s —odf 71:9711e6a5t,-65de;—ire;a;":11010 rye, —s. Od. COEN.—Wheat 6i; EXETER,—JuIy 24. tri 64, Od to 7s 6d ; barley, s g, i v ; 3 0 grinding do. 0:: Od to Os Od. Oats, 3s 4 ( 1 44 Beans, Os Od ' to 0 Od. Peas, OOs Od to OOs Oci:‘, Od to FLouR.--Fine, 44s Od to 46s Od; seconds, * -4 fe9 Od per sack. CATTLE. —There was a small supply of b u llock t g 'll44 beef, from lie to 11s 6tl per score ; inferior, 9s 64-10,°03 score; fat calves, 5d to 63 per lb ; barreuners , vo te 0 1); 0(1. per score ; cows an d calven, 121. to 20/. us ; ,0 0 '03 calves, Od to 7(1 per lb., rearine calves -s t ° 00. 0 10 sheep, ew es an d l am b s, 21 . 5 s to 3/. 5s per couple;,.. to 6(1; wotbers, 6cl 6id ; lamb s , 7A t o Od per lu s lipst large size, —s t o — s ; secon d s i ze, —s to —0 ;lj pof to --a ; suckers, —s t o -- s. R ough fa t , ' 0 Pork carcases from 10s 6d to 10s 10d per score. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 23d inst the wife of Ed d Frede“‘, [mum Cane, Esq., o f the Royal Engineers. TyaO c' On the 2,id inst., at Marlow House, Kingston - ° 11- Mrs. Thomas R o l s Hoare. OF A DAUGFITER ai jj Oa the 24th inst.,. in Queen Ann-street, Cav e s 6 . squre, the wife of William Act on , Mg. • On the 24th inst., at Kensi ng t otrga te, 14 j''' Thomson. et MARRIED. Ol iV • 11.. n ry Davis, Esq., ? At St. Anne's Church,of Ke nn i ngton -park, to G e " of ' Alfred Downes, son 'l'h ogio",10 AP' holla, only dalghter of Frederick 'Dunne, -r''''" )far Ge.)rge-street, Westminster. 00 .." On the 2:.id Inst. at the ch urc h o f St. Stopher i te Ge sv u t d tyr. Avenue-road, 'Arthur, second son of the l l 'i fl , dr Robins, Esq., to M ar y J ane, eldest daught er ° Se Dod olville, Esq., of St. James's terrace' park. On the lid inst., s t o r e b e e t i - t s q s u t a e r w e : On the 21d inst. c 1,, e ll- Mr. SpannluElD.Piekoring',. 0- op l' i f iet: and 2 U g lac e ' IL JO , road, aged 55. city , , ' , per Sussex - Pla ce ' rtFl On the 23d inst. Gov R • no., ES . VA' John Rosser, aged 68. v ieetie j ; ,enta a e t o N To e c ur es C a o r u -r r o t a , dS,tv..,isil it:: p , Is: , On the 21st' nut., at Stowmarket , Joseph 1',, 3 f Soo Esq., Alderman and J.P. for the county tovra " e, ot 4 amp , on aged 56. ton' . On the 20th inst., at 6, Strand-terrace , Osn i ,:. 4 - 0 6 Derby, Mr. George Miles, late of Batton -gar" - ye o .' de' On the 17th inst., at Bcrdeaux, Marguerite, s v gt 1 4 1 o f Rev. F. Martin, of 9, Upper Seymour-street 9;-,l;tirct' perk, and minister of the French Protestant `' London. ___,......i--"ef) -_, ________ ---- v i4v LONDON : Printed and Publighed by MlTRl)°,.ree 14 , ° : of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun 1.1 ,7. ;00 k i 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the 331,0Y2 in t ''''' C of Middlesex, Saturday, July 25, 1867. GE RO eve Adi end as us open! In t after 1 L on Ite and 1111 Becurii their b their c Per cei reason per eer r( 1 1.., Q 11 ISt of new 4( /le( XTel licence to Geo. Prod grante, Not e Somers Of gum _T° ti ° FhYsicl 41 sorde On aDp] z.ventc LOndor It I Prinei out it te ed I 'nay and h that t derar Pu In ay Ord EMIR nedfi Th ealet Oircu Colo: AN Pate devto Bold Pali cone 1014 ittrei now Wha 414 aftel ern( tor n rrii Cop tall