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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT• HOUSE OF LORDS —(: ESTERDA.Y.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at five o'clock. THIRD READINGS. On the motionof the Earl of REDESDA.LE, the fol- Jowing bills were severally read a third time and passed --.oarews Estate ; Newport, Abergaveny, and Hereford R a ,i). way ; Portadown and Dungannon Railway ; Salis bury aod Yeovil Railway ; Whitehaven and Furness Hal way ; Dorset Central Railway (Amendments) ; Rhymney Railway. THE BALLOT. The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petitinn from the Ballot Society, and also one from Westminster, in favour of vote by ballot. SLAVE TRADE. Lord BROUGHAM said, in the absence of the noble e arl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he begged to ask the noble earl the President of the Council, whether the Government bad received any information from our Vice-Consul at Marseilles respecting the supposed re jection by the constituted authorities at Martinique of the offer proffered to the French Government in re spect to the importation of free negroes into the West Coast of Africa ? Earl GRANVILLE said he was not aware of any such information having been received, but he would communicate the question to his noble friend. STATE OF THE ARMY IN INDIA. The Earl of ELLENBOROIJGH rose to move for certain returns relating to the means of carriage of the army in India. He said all now depended upon proper land carriage. If those measures which had been pointed out. to the Government some time time back had been taken, he was of opinion that the present deplorable calamity woul 1 not have taken place. The present mode was not the way in which war used to bo car ried on. When he was a boy he recoliected reading with great admiration the gallant conduct of Gen. Gillespie who, when a similar mutiny broke out at Lahore, though he was two miles distant when the news reached him, lost not a moment in meeting the difficulty, and within one hour, instead of waiting for 9-pounders, had rushed through the gates at the head of his forces, and sabred the mutineers on the spot. The mutiny was thus put down. (Hear. hear.) That was in the time of the Red Hand—(hear, bear)—it ap peared that we now had arrive 3 at the time of Bed Head. (Laughter.) As to the position of General Barnard, it appeared that he had taken a great number of the enemies guns. 11l informed as he was upon the facts, he was not prepared to say that Geri eral Barnard could have done more. If those affairs which it was stated bad taken place at Barrackpore and Dumdum, had occurred under the late Sir C. Napier, he would have treated them in a very different way to that which they had been treated by the authorities in India. General Barnard's present position world no doubt be able to repel any attacks so long - as he remained there. But it was not possible be would occupy that station very long. It was stated that he was• waiting for reinforcements, but there was no new force to send to him, uobss they took away the troops from the Punjaub. His mind was greatly re lieved when he read the last acc3unts from India in re spect to our army before Delhi as he had a foreboding that an attack would have been made, and that they would re ceive the information that it had failed, but was glad such eras not the case. He hoped that General Bar nard bad an appreciation of the difficulty of his position, fcr when the rains came on he would be cut off from all means of support, as in his present position he would be ampriaoned on a narrow strip of land. His present situation was not merely one of peril, but one that might eventually end in ru n. Earl GRANVILLE said there was no objection to the papers moved for by the noble earl. The conduct pursued in cornmeatin g in such unmeasured language upon the present state of affairs in India could serve no other purpose than tuat of embarrassing the Government. Statements such as those made by the noble earl could have no other effect than to do serious mischief at a time when the public mind was so seriously excited. The Earl of EL LENBOROUGEI said the opinions of others on his conduct could not alter the facts. The Marquis of CLANRICA.RDE complained of the noble earl stating that he had no confidence in the In dian Government. If that was his opinion, why did he not move a want of confidence in that Government I He then defended the curse of the Indian Government, and said the great difficulty in India was the want of civil servants. Lord IVIA.LMESBURY denied that, because a want of confidence ei: , sted in their minds, they were, therefore bound to divide tae house. Such a course would be turned againA them, and it would be said that they sympathised with the mutineers. He believed such discuseloes to be of the greatest use, because the country seemed to be lulled into a state of false security on the subject of India. He hoped the Government would not attempt to blind the eyes of the peop'e. The Doke of ARGYLL, on the part of the Govern ment complained that the noble earl bad expressed an utter want of conti lance in the local Government of India without knowing any facts which could justify such a conclusion. He denied that there was any ground for siating that there was A want of carriage for the army. There might be a want of a siege train, but he was not prepared to say oven that before the arrival of the mail. The course taken by Lord Canning with regard to the troops in Calcutta was justified by the opinion of Sir T. Munroe. The defenceless; state of the city was an assumption on the part of the noble earl. Until the mail arrive t it was impossible to say that a marine battalion had not been embodied. Tne subject then dropped. The Crown Suits (Scotland) Bill passed through com mittee. The Bankruptcy and Real Securities (Scotland) Bill, and the Commons Enclosure Bill were read a third time and passed. The Glebe Lands (Ireland) Bill passed through cam mittee, and was read a third time. The Turnpike Act Committee Bill was read a third time and passed. The Lands and Assessed Taxes Bill, the Lunatics (Scotland), the Christ Church West Hartlepool, and the Insolvency (Ireland) Bill, were read a second time. s r Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lord amendments to the following bills were con sidered and agreed to :—Burial of the Dead within the Liberties of London, llatlingden and Todmorden Roadß, Kinross-shire Railway, Metropolitan Railway (No. 2.), and South Staffordehira Water. PETITIONS. Mr. CROSS and another hon. member presented pe titions from the inhabitants of Preston complaining of the scarcity of cotton, and praying for an enquiry into the causes that prevented its growth in India. ELECTION PROSECUTIONS. Mr. IL BAILLIE asked the right hon. the Home Secretary if the Attorney-General had been authorised to prosecute all those persons who had been reported by election committees to have violated the laws of the country, or whether it was to be confined to the offen ders in the county of llayo Sir G. GREY said that the Attorney-General only prosecuted such cases as the commit , ees considered were of sufficient importance and magnitude for such a proceeding. The chairman of the Mayo Committee, with, as he (Sir G. Grey) understood, the unanimous approbation of the members of that committee, made a motion in that house for the prosecution of two per sons in connection with that election, to which the house bad acceded. He did not know the other cases to which the hon. gentleman referred, but he had no doubt if the chairman of aoy other election committee ' made a similar motion, that the house would deal with it when made according to its merits. PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRA- I'[ON (IRELAND) BILL. Tbia bill wai committed pro forma, for the introduc tion of amendment?. REVISING BARRISTER 3 (DUBLIN) BILL. On the motion for going into conrnitt,e on this bill, Mr. NA PIER, at cinsidqralll length, stated his oh jecions to this bill. It would hare the eff-pct of depriv ing one of the present revising barristers of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) of Ilia office without compensation. He moved that, the house go into committee on this day month. Mr. J. FITZGERALD resisted the amendment. A diFcussion ensued, in which Mr. Hardy, Mr. I. Butt, Mr. Whiteside, Sir G. Grey, and other hon. mem bers took part. The house divided, when the numbers were— For going into committee Against it 57 Majority as The house went into committee. On the first clause, Mr. NAPIICEZ. moved, ns an amendment, that the Power of appointment should be transferred to the Inn! Chief Justice, and that he should appoint one in addi tion tl the one already appointed by the Lord Lieute nant. The AT TORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND op posed the amendment, contending that the English syi tern was not so much approved of as to warrant them in adoptin4 it fo r Ir llnd. It would be an anomaly to have two reviving barristers, one appointed by th e L or e- Lieutenant, and the other Cy the Lord Chi e f J us ti ce . Mr. 'Whi teside, Mr. Butt, Mr. H. Herbert, Colonel FreLch, Mr. I. B utt, and (Aber members addressed the house, alter which the committee divided— For the amendment ........................ 63 Against it........... . ............... 83 Majority .. ................. 25 port progress ...... Mr. NAPIER then moved that the - chairman do re s A discussion ensued, but it was stopped by the stand ing' order of the house at ten minutes to 4 o'clock. The Board of HePlth Continuanoo Bill passed through committee. SLIGO ELECTION COMMITTEE. Sir J. BULLED, chairman of the committee, brought up the report. It declared Mr. Somers not duly e l ected at the la , t election, and that the Right Hon. J. Wy nne was duly elected, and ought to have been returned. The usual notice to the C:erk of the Crown was ordered. The other orders were disposed of. Tho house suspended its sitting and resumed at six O'clock. THE ELECTION PETITIONS. Lord STANLEY brought up the report of Cie select committee appointed to try the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough i 4 Ipswich. The committee reported that llu2,rh Edward Adair, Esq., and Joh n C hevalier Cobbold, Esq , were duly elected. Mr. COI3I3ETT brought up the report of the select committee appviated to try th e merits of the petit:oa against the return for the county of Huntingdon. The committee reported that John Mayer Heathcote, EN., was not duly eketed, and that Edward Fellowes, EN., was duly thetdd. The HON. MEMBER moved that the Clerk of the Crown do attend the house with the last return for the county of Huntingdon on Monday next to amend the same by erasing the name of John Mayer Heathcote, Esq. Agreed to. TEE StlN, LONDON SATVRDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1857 , PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. Lord J. RUSSELL--I beg to give notice that on Monday I shall propose that a select committee be ap pointed to consider whether the Act 5 and 6 Will. IV., C. 62, is applicable to the oaths appointed by law to be taken by members at the table previously to their taking their seats, and in what manner the act so applies, and to report thereon to the house. I shall propose that the committee consist of 25 members, and that the gentle. men of the long robe be added. In giving this notice, I beg to ask my noble friend at the head of the Govern ment whether, as this question concerns the seat of a member, and there is only a short period during which he can sit in the present session, he will allow the motion to be brought forward on Monday. Lord PALNIERSTON—I am very unwilling to be a party to the interposition of other matters before the business which stands for consideration ; but under the circumstances stated by my noble friend, I can hardly refuse to yield to his appeal. EDUCATION. Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had given notice of his intention to move the appointment of a committee on education, and he had understood that the Government would not oppose it. He should like to know whether the noble lord at the head of the Government would give him a day for bringing on his motion. Lord PALMERSTON would consult his colleagues on the subject, and give the right lion, baronet ananswer in the course of the evening. THE MAIL PACKET SERVICE. Lord NAAS asked toe — Se;ret;;;; -- tO the Treasury what steps had been taken by her Majesty's Government in pursuance of the report of the committee on contract packets, appointed under the Treasury minute of March 1, 1853 ; and whether it was now contemplated to grant an extension of any existing contracts, notwith standing the modifications recommended in that report. Mr. WILSON said the report to which the noble lord referred was a very long one and contained a great number of recommendations. He supposed his hon. friend referred especially to the paragraph which had reference to the length of contracts for the postal service. That paragraph pointed out what appeared to him the true principles on which the original contracts and the renewal contracts were based ; and be was not aware whether or not the hon. gentleman concurred in what was said. Most of the services had been very long. The Ponineu;ar and Oriental contract when last renewed was made to extend over eight years, and in the case of the West India contract the period was 11 years. There was no official proposal before the Treasury at present for the extension of any of the services, and if there should be any such proposal that would be the proper time to consider whether it was for the public advantage that any extension should take place. THE SCHOONER MARIA. In answer to Mr. J. Looms, Lord PALMERSTON said that the seizure of a Bri tish vessel by the Venezuelan Government was now under consideration by Lord Clarendon. In answer to Sir J. PAKINOTON, Lord PALMERSTON said he was not aware that Sir Charles Napier had addressed any paper to the In dian Government upon the organisation of the Indian army le4ond that which was already referred to, and extracts from which were produced, but as Sir John seemed to think there was another, he would make fur ther inquiries. Some conversation occurred in explanation of state ments made on the Indian debate on Monday last, in which Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Vernon Smith, Sir E. Cols brooke, Mr. Mangles, Sir C. Wood, and others took part, but which led to no result. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. On the order of the day for the resumption of the ad journed debate. Messrs. BOWYER and Hon: severally presented peti tions against the bill. Mr. GLADSTONE—Sir, in justification of the course whieh was adopted last week when a considerable por tion of this house demanded further time for the consi deration of the marriage question, I c mid not appeal to anything more conclusive than the course which the pre sent debate has taken. Last week, when the noble lord at the head of the Government was told that the subject could not be fairly or fully considered during the present session, or at the present advanced period of the session, he replied, on the contrary, that he saw no reason why the debate could not be carried on with the same ear nestness and force as at any other time ; adding, that if necessary, the duration of the session might be extended to an indefinite period. But in the course of last evening what did we witness ? There was no unkindness ctrtaiely on the part of the house, but such a state of lassitude as was entirely unconquerable, and which made it quite impossible for many gentlemen to state their opinions. After the speech of my hon. and learned friend the At torney-General, with the exception of the hon, member for Hertfordshire, the speeches were all one side, eight gentlemen iu succession speaking against the bill—a circumstance almost unparalleled, according to my re collection of the practice of the House of Commons. I shall not speak of the ability of these speeches t because perhaps,l may be looked upon as a partial judge ; but any one will admit their earnestness, while the magni tude of the subject cannot be denied. And yet it re mained, as I have said, a one-sided debate, and the sense of impatience which was exhibited on any allusion to the possibility of a division, was at lest consummated by the declitration of the Secretary of State, whoactually complained that the division did not take place last night, adding that there were symptoms of premeditation connected with the prolongation of the debate. (Sir G. GREY made an observation.) My right hon, friend as I understand, adheres to the word, and is not sorry he used it. The right hon. gentleman never saw clearer signs of premeditation. Does he think that the signs of premeditation were greatest on the part of those who, 1 under circumstances of great discouragement, discharged what they deemed to be a conscientious obligation, or with those who when this great and new and most im portant subject was before the house remained systema ticelly silent, in order that they might arrive at a divi sion. I do not lay a charge or blame upon any one, for this is toe serious a subject for party recriminations. It is not a subject upon which to make concessions to party prejudices, or to offer praise or blame to any Govern. meat, and I have not said what has escaped me to cast blame on any one, but rather to ask justice for those who stated that this great question was one which it would be impossible to do justice to under the circumstances in which it is now pressed on us. It may be said that the argument is all one way, and that the speeches opposed to the Government bill contained nothing that was de serving of an answer, but that might be said in any de bate, and besides is not the view taken by those whose opinions are worthy of all consideration. It is considered that the circumstances under which this bill is pressed forward are unusual and unprecedented, and that those who oppose it do so not only in deference to their own sense of duty, but in obedience to a very strong feeling on the part of large bodies of their fellow-subjects. We are called upon to discuss a difficult and important sub ject, at a period of the session at which for 20 Seats such a subject bas not been laid before Parliament. We are not at tended to when we ask for time to obtain the ordi nary information connected with the subject, its figures, or details, but I hope we shall be attended to when we say that the house is proceeding in ignorance of a strong feeling on the part of the country, whenever an oppor tunity has been been given for eliciting that feeling. It is in vain to say that all this ought to have been known before. The circulation of information, after all the accelerations of modern inventions, is not very rapid, at least of that sort of information which brings a subject completely home to those who are interested ; but still a strong feeling has been sireitsd, and I must spend some minutes in giving the house a sample of the way in which people are moved, and also in showing how the conduct of Government, in pressing forward this bill, bas checked and prevented the preparation of petitions. I have myself received letters stating that Go vernment appeared determined to press on this bill, and that therefore the writer must forward his petition with such signatures as he could hastily collect. One gentle man writes from Cornwall that if it were not for the shortness of the time ho could get his petition signed by 3 10th of the population of the parish. He says that the labouring classes are against the bill to a man, and also a large proportion of the middle classes. Another writes from Lincolnshire, that the bill a s it came d own f rom th e Lords is thorou g hly hateful in the eyes of the great mass of the middle classes and the poor, eminently so amongst all church people, but very markedly so amongst religi ous dissenters. From Suffolk I learn that all classes are against the bill, one poor man making the remark, that instead of the marriage vo w running, " until death d i us pint," it should be, "until we two quarrel." The writer who forwards a petition, adds, that the signatures would be trebled if a little time were allowed. Another writes from Wantage that it would be impossible to ex aggerate the state of feeling in his district. In short I am certain that neither the Government nor the Parliament has any conception of the danger that exists of tamper ing with this law, or of the number of honest men, fathers of families, who are hostile to the change proposed. I dare say it may be alleged that the people complaining do not know what are the provisions of the bill. Very true; but can there possibly be a better ground for ask ing more time? I have no doubt that that is the case; in fact, I have seen it in the letters of educated persons, and ii is the only point upon which [ have the slightest com plaint to make of the Government. It is not consistent with the general rule of Parliament that. such a mea sure as the present should be in such a way forestalled. What is the reason that it is so forestalled ? It is not surely the importance of settling a question in which a few individuals may have an interest ? My nolele friend the member for Lynn seemed to know more about mo tives than most of us, and told us ingeniously his reason Why the bill should b e p rocee d e d w i t h . I t i s f orsooth T that we may h ave some thi ng to s h ow f or our session. he necessity o f not presenting a blank list to the coun uthnadterwethhe trY, is the reaeon why the bill i s t o b e presse d f orwar d apveresent unfavourable circumstances. I say in that mannenro lot to make character for this house I subject, lest it should are not to hurry on an important ew e said eut of doors that we were I idle, and that in the aattiot: of the public we should lose caste. Believe me 'till afetetrrue and lasting eetima tion of our countrymen will, depend, not on the li e , asu a r e ei d i through the rapidity with which we hertz hic i l house, but on the quality and those measures when they have become law . durability °i said that we cannot approach this bill without colintsiidteiB ing the alternative, without considerii. g what has been the practice of Parliament, whi c h , as stated by my learned friend, has been in th e h a b it Qi hou, previousand passing div' Jive bills without question. I do not dissem ble that thr et creates a real and serious difficulty in the case, hut this I do say, that of three alternatives —one, that of pat sing this bill ; another, the continuing to pa;- private bi) Is as before until we can see our way better ; and the th ird, that of stopping private acts altogether— the alternative of passing this bill at this time is immea surably tht I most dangerous. I frankly own that I Heger saw greater signs —and I mean to adduce some of those signs—of the crude state of what may be called the par liamentary mind on this subject. It was only during the present year that I myself found leisure to examine it, and until within the last few nights I myself was quite unfit to pass an opinion on the bill. We are told in the public journals that ten minutes, or at most half an hour. is enough for the settlement of the ques tion. - _ Such dicta as this may prove the rashness with which we deal with the (most sacred of human in terest!, but they do not lessen our responsibility, or save us from:future embarrassments or future liability. It is said that we have not objected to these private bills, and the inference drawn is, that net having objected to these bills, we ought not to object to the measure now before the house. My answer to such argument is, that when Parliament has entered into a course of private bills in the nature of privilegia, it ceases to be competent to members to take objection to these bills. We had an instance of that the other day, in the case of Shepherd's Disability Removal Bill. There were four or five prece dents, but the rule is that if you object to any private bill, you must raise the general question. I concur in this and it is the one general correction which I shall have to apply to the very incorrect statement of the Attorney- General, that this fixed system is so little fixed that when these divorce bills showed a tendency to grow, there has been a strong parliamentary tendency to check them. Twice during the last century, and once at the close of the century, attempts were made with that view. I grant those attempts failed; but that only proves more strongly the necessity of full discussion, and. that now, when we take a new starting point, we are bound to examine the whole matter. It may be said that the two statements— one, that there is great danger in precipitancy, and the other that there is a strong feeling in the country—cross; for, if we legislate hastily, when the public feelirg is strong against us, we can easily retrace our steps. But, in my opinion, to rely on such a representation is to rely on a gross fallacy. The feeling of the country is, I believe against the measure ; but if this measure is passed, al though against the feeling of an overwhelming majority of Christian husbands and wives, I believe you will have constituted an interest, a party, a sect, who will have a presumptive right in the new law, and that thus it will become impossible for you to recal your hasty decision. What then is the effect of the bill before us, which is said to be of such modest scope and extent? The object of the bill is to deal with marriage as a whole, and in that aspect it is so admirably treated by Lord f3towell, I need not apo logise for quoting the passage from his work. Lord Stowell describes the threefold character of marriage ; first, as a law of nature antecedent to the formation of society, and an important but merely personal contract between two parties ; and next, when society is formed, as not merely a personal but a civil contract with civil obligations. Thirdly, when the religions principle is re ceived into a state, marriage become a religious contract, accompanied by plighted vows, which Heaven is called upon to witness. Finally, the idea of the indissolubility of marriage was taken from Scripture. Lord Stowell thus distinguishes between the different characters of marriage ; and I think the great difficulty we have to deal with is, that the house is not qualified to deal with mar riage in all these three characters. (Hear, hear.) If it undertakes only to deal with the civil consequences and obligations cf marriage which are within its pro vince, I believe the problem would be easy of solution, but it likewise undertakes to determine what shall be the effect of solemn vows passed between one individual and another ; and lastly it undertakes, not being vested with any theological authority, to set itself up as a ruler over the consciences of men, and to absolve them from the obligations of marriage which bad been undertaken by solemn vow in the face of the congregation. (Hear, hear.) In my opinion, a great difficulty arises from taking that view, and it would be a great relief to my mind if we consented to legislate for that for which we are competent, namely, the civil consequences and re sponsibilities of marriage. To admit that vows taken before the throne of God are to be influenced by the power of this house would, in my mind, be a most de• graded doctrine. (Hear, bear) Having now described the great effect of the bill, I shall proceed to exemine some of the assertions of the Attorney-general. He says that although technically we have no code on the subject of mart iage, yet that in point of fact the proceedings of the legislature in such matters are judicial proceedings ; that the code is as well known as any other branch of the law, and that it has been in force for 200 years. I cannot admit this latter as a correct statement. The practice has been in a state of growth for 200 years, but it is not 100 years since the system has arrived at its present state. Is it a system even yet ? My hen. and learned friend says that the code is as well ascertained and clearly defined as any other branch of our law. (" Hear," from the Attorney-General.) Is that true ? What says the standing order of the House of Lords f That no bill of divorce shall be introduced in which there i 3 not a provision' forbidding the adulterate parties to inter marry. Every bill is introduced with that clause ; and although the clause is subsequently struck out, it shows that the law is one way and the practice another ; and yet my hon. and learned friend says that the code is as clearly defined as any other branch of our law. My hon. and] learned friend says that divorce was the prin ciple of tke Reformation. I will come to that by-and• by ; but further than that, he says that the indissolu bility of marriage depended upon its being a sacrament. My hon. and learned friend was not very distinct on that point. [An observation from the Attorney-General.] Does my hon. and learned friend disclaim that doctrine of the sacrament I for that is the position on which the promoters of the hill take their stand. If you look at the report of the commission upon which this bill is founded, yon will find that the sacramental chapter of marriage is the point upon which their report turns. It is contended that in Roman Catholic times marriage was held to be a sacrament, and therefore indissoluble, and that the Re formation, in taking away the sacramental character took away its indissolubility. Now, I say that that asser tion is entirely without foundation. The Council of Trent has declared that marriage is indissoluble independently of its sacramental cha acter. On the other hand, in the Eastern church, in which marriage is held to be a sacra ment, it is also dissoluble. So much for dissolubility and the sacramental character. (Hear.) I cannot compliment my hon. and learned friend on embarking his fortunes in so crazy a craft as a position of this description. (Cheers.) My hon, and learned friend says that the bill makes no change in the law, but merely makes that law which has been practised for a great number of years. He would not detain the house by quoting authorities, not even the authority of the commission of 1853, in support of the doctrine that the dissolution of marriage was unknown to the law of England. He would merely observe that that was the construction put upon the law by that commission. His hon. and learned friend said the principle was not new, and he instanced the fact that private bills authorising divorce were passed every session. But did it follow from the principle upon which divorce bills were passed that he was i n t ro d uc i ng a new Why, there c ou ld not b e a grosser o grant to his h on . an d learned fallacy.la I f bill be ? were t friend that his bill was following out Parliamentary pro cedent, still he contended that this was altogether a new law for the purpose. What did his hon. and learned friend propose ? Was it a mere continuance of the pre cedents upon which he rested his eve ! Hitherto they had practically limited divorce to the wealthy classes of the community. There was one case he believed on re cord of a man suing for divorce in forma pauperis ; but speaking generally divorce had been strictly limited to the highest and wealthiest classes. Now what did his hon. and learned friend propose ? To pass a law under which. divorce was to be made accessible to all classes. Was that now the law of England ! They had in the statute book an act providing that members of the royal family should net marry without the consent of the sovereign. But that was not a principle of law for the whole community—it applied to the royal family, and to them alone. And this code of laws about which his hon. and learned friend spoke, and under which he alleged the system of divorce was established as a principle of English law was, he contended, as foreign to the British nation as a whole as was the act relating to royal mar riages. The middle and lower classes cared no more for that code of which his hon. and learned friend spoke— knew no more about it than if it were a code established for the benefit of the inhabitants of the planet Jupiter. There were multitudes in this country who did not even know of its existence—nay, there were many clergymen who did not know of it, who had never heard of it. These divorce bills, limited to one or two in a year, and confined to a particular class, had no more effect upon the millions of the population than if no such bill had ever passed. He made this assertion broadly, for it was of vital consequence in the consideration of this question. He contended that his hon. and learned friend's bill, partly by its enactments and more by its principle, carry ing as it did divorce to all classes of the country who came within its conditions, was for all practical purposes novel and unprecedented. (Hear,) His hon. and learned friend went at some length into the argument of scriptural au thority, and dealing as be was with high spiritual matters; and calling upon the house to pass a law declaring in what way the clergy were to act in reference to those matters, he wan not surprised that he had not in this re spect followed the exemple of the commissioners of 1853, who avoided the religious part of the question. But his hon. and learned friend had gone lar ge l y i nto the theolo gical argument, into which he (Hr. Gladstone) could not follow him without protesting against being called upon to discuss the religious question in that house. They were not competent to do so. His hon. and learned friend was not competent, and a fortiori he (Hr. Glad stone) was not competent to deal with that part of the case, and he thought it somewhat hard upon them that they should be called upon to pass the bill in such a form thatethey were not competent to deal satisfactorily with the reasons for and against it. The patience of the house could not allow time or oppertunity for such a discussion, which was only suited for the closet of divines, or a synod of theologians. Ho was, however, compelled to touch upon it—unsatisfactorily as it neces sarily must be. His hon. and learned friend pointed with great exultation to what he seemed to think funda darnental discrepancies between those who contended on the authority of Scripture that rnieriage was not disso luble. In reference to the Greek word ropvfia, he said that Mr. Keble, a distinguished divine, gave it one construction —that a friend of his, Mr. Badderly, gave it another—and a third authority, a writer in the Quar• terly, put upon the won a different construction, c in stituting it to mean idolatry or apostacy. Now the writer in the Quarterly did not give any interpretation. He discussed various views given by others, without offer ing any judgment in favour of the ore construction or the other. But what he (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to po . lo out was this—his hon. and learned friend quoted these three several constructions, as if they bad been des. tive of each other ; whereas, so far from 4' being 0P- posed, they all agreed upon the one essential point— that was whether the words of exception in St. Matthew referred to a particular law of the Jews, which was tran sitory in its character, and which, being so, did not ap ply to Christians. That was the vital—the essential p drit, and in that respect he (Mr. Gladetene) contended all the three constructions agreed. If they interpreted it to mean idolatry, or apostacy, or adultery, or mar riage ei ith a foreign person, they remit remember that the Jews had particular laws of their own, and which ever construction of the word rofveia was advanced, it was capable of being made conformable with the law of the Jews, but had no bearing urn Christians. But when his hon. and learned friend talked of discrepancies between those who held that the best interpretation of scripture was that which made marriage indissoluble, he would ask him to consider the discussions between those who supported the contrary view. Hera was a bill pro fessing to rest on the authority of scripture. Two hon. gentlemen had spoken in favour of it, his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-Geaeral and the hon. MOM bet for Hertfordshire. The hon. member for forts founded his argument on the verse in the sth of Mat thew ; but the Attorney-General threw that verse over board altogether. His hon. and learned friend used words so remarkable that he must quote them : " The argument was, that as the excsotion in St. Matthew was not found in St. Mark, or in St. Luke, that therefore the rule in St. Mark and St. Luke be taken to be the binding rule. But it never seemed to strike those wlio advanced this argument that the reasonable deduction was that our Saviour, in addressing those who were con versant with and were bound by the Jewish law, thought it requisite in one place to say th a t h e exce pt e d the else which was provided for by the Jewish law, but thought it unnecessary in another place to introduce the ex:ep tional case, because adultery in the Jewish law was not a case for divorce, but was subject to criminal punish ment. Our Saviour was condemning those things which were divorces among the Je ws , an d adultery was not a case for divorce according to the Jewish law, but for criminal punishment." The honourable member for Hertfordshire said, on the contrary, that that verso in St. Matthew did cen3titute a real exception and that the adultery mentioned in the verse did constitute a ground for divorce applicable to us for a precedent, but the hon. and learned Attorney-General, in flat con tradiction to that, threw the verse overboard, and en- I deavoured to show that it could not have any bearing on the question, because the manner of dealing with adultery according to the law of the Jews was not by divorce but by capital punishment. So much for the harmony on scriptural interpretation of the only two gentlemen who had ventured to speak in support of the bill. It was not to be dissembled that much diversity of opinion prevailed as to the true construction of Scripture ao bearing upon this question. Some thought the prohibition, of divorce—that is divorce carrying with it the power of re-marriage—was absolute ; others con sidered there was a permission in Scripture for re marriage after divorce in the case of adultery alone, but limited to the innocent man, and not extended to the innocent woman. That he believed was the most ancient opinion in the church after the doctrine of indis solubility. There were others who went further thee this, and gave the right of re-marriage to both the inno cent man and the innocent woman. Again, there were some who on Scriptural authority, gave the liberty of marriage to both parties after divorce for adultery. There was another body of persons—and this was the view adopted in the Scotch law—who gave it to both parties, ti Nether innocent or guilty, provided there was no intermarriage between the guilty parties. There was a sixth party that permitted such inter marriages ; a eleventh that considered the Scripture granted liberty of divorce and re-marriage in case of adul tery and also in case of desertion. But the great pecu liarity of the present bill was this. He had given seven different constructions of Scripture on the point, all of them having some champions and advocates. He did not say they were any of them supported by sound argument ; but the peculiarity of the bill was that it agreed with neither of the seven. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) There was, he believed, a feeling amongst cer tain religious people that our marriage law was drawn too tight ; that by relaxing it in the manner hers pro posed they would make it square with Scripture ; and that if that point could be established it was felt that it would be a conclusive argument for the bill. But no one could show that it squared with Scripture by any construction that could be put upon it. What did the bi Ido I It relieved—he must so speak of it, he sup posed, though the relief was more than doubtful—it gave relief to the man in case of tie woman's adultery, and it gave relief, not in ca-e of the man's adultery, but of the man's adultery under very rare and peculiar circum stances. (Hear, hear.) Let them take the authority of Scripture as given in that house. The Attorney- General had invited them to force his construction upon the consciences of 17,000 clergymen. Let them see how his hon, and learned friend's construction agreed with his bill. His hon. and learned friend threw over the verse in St. Matthew, but found another for his pur pose—that in which our Lord said, "They twain shall be one flesh, whereupon they were no more twain, but one flesh." And his hon. and learned friend said that by the fact of adultery the bond was broken. Was that the sense of the Serip:ure I No, it was an arbitrary sense put on the words by his hon. and learned friend —a construction put upon them perhaps by Archbishop Cranmer, and which had been to them an advocate, but which was not supported by any weight of authority, and which it was impossible to defend against those who would press upon his hon, and learned friend for further changes in the law of marriage if this bill passed. It was a most arbitrary rule, founded on the notion that the bond of marriage was so affected by adultery that it ex.;eted no longer. There were many causes far more fatal to the great obligations of marriage, as disease, idiocy, crime involving imprisonment for life, and which, if the bond were so dissoluble, might be urged as a reason for divorce ; hut that was not what he would dwell upon at present. His hon. and learned friend said by the fact of the adultery the marriage bond was destroyed, and then he asked the house to pass a bill under which nine teen out of every twenty adulterers in the land would he covered with perfect immunity. (Hear, hear ) The enormous majority of adulteries were adulteries of men ; and having shown that the adultery destroyed the mar riage bond, his hon. and learned friend immediately de manded a license to destroy nineteen-twentieths of the propositions he laid down. (Hear, hear.) His hon. and learned friend commenced at once child murder upon his own bill—(" hear" and laughter) —for he justified it from Scripture that marriage could not exist after adul tery, and then he proceeded to pass a law to compel cohabitation, when according to his own showing, in nineteen out of twenty cases the parties were no longer married. (Hear.) Such was the mode in which Scripture was handled by Attorney-Generals, and in which they in• vited the house to repose in them confidence so i m pli ci t th a t you are to force their construction on t h e co nsci e nces o f the clergy, who, if they say it is c on t rary to t h e i r vows, were to be humanely told to go and obey. He had yet to learn if marriage was destroyed ipso facto by the adul tery of the husband ; how coul f they say to the wife, "You have ceased to be married to your adulterou hus band, but we nevertheless compel you to live with him." There was this difference between his mode of construing Scripture and the Attorney-General's —that he (Ma. Gladstone) did not ask the house to stand upon any ar gument, ingenious or not ingenious, be might cinstruct from any text. The lights of history, the records of an tiquity, the lives of those who followed our bl esse d L or d had immense weight, in hi s v i ew, i n determining the true sense of scriptural authority. The hon. and learded member for Dundalk had given hie construction of the scriptural authority, which it was difficult to answer (though he had not, as his hon, and learned friend the Attorney-General had anticipated, quoted the Council of Trent.) With regard to the main point in the case, they had wiLle them the authority of his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General —a n d he was a host in him self. Those who proved the lax interpretations from Scripture on the verse of St. Matthew, the Attorney- General threw overboard. He (Mr. Gladstone) would, however, venture to point out this, that if they took the text of St. Matthew as giving a license of marriage after adultery, they placed St, Matthew in conflict on the point with the other Evangelista and St, Paul. The Gospel of St. Matthew was written for the Jews, and probably in Hebrew ; the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke were written for foreigners and Gentiles. There was no reason for saying that the Gus pel of St. Matthew was known to the Gentiles, and yet according to that and the doctrine of the hoc, member for Hertford, this essential and vital point in the Chris tian law of marriage —whether it might be dissolved for adultery—a most important matter in the application of Christianity into the disordered society of Rome, when the relations of the sexes was most dissolute, was kept a secret from them for many generations, and never pro claimed to them—bat on the understanding of the A ttor- nay-General as to Mark that it was not mentioned then -I because they addressed the Jews, who punished it criminally, they had St. Matthew in harmony with St. Mark and St. Luke, who addressed the Gentile, and for ' whom the law, as addressed to the Jews, would have had no meaning. The member for Herta said that the punishment of death was not inflicted by the Jewish law except the parties were discovered in flagrante de flate,. The hon. member was the first that had made I that discovery. If he would look to the chapter of Deuteronomy touching upon adultery, he would see I that the punishment of death was to be inflicted on the incontinence not merely of a married person, but o f one even who was betrothed. History, historical testimony, I and the primitive and early testimony of the Christian church, was vital in this case. He therefore hOmbly propounded this as the true construction of the verse of St. Matthew. Our Lord was speaking to the Jews, and I as the Jewish law provided the punishment of death in case of a lultsry, it was impossible the verse could refer to re-m arr i age d ur i n g the life of the parties. With regard to history, he made this proposition boldly, that for the first 300 years we hod not a shred or vesti g e of divorce with re-marriage for any cause what ever. The tendency of the early church was to forbid, to prohibit second marriages in ad cause whatever. This was clear fromall the early writers. But they had higher authority than writers ; they had the law of the church ; they had the Christian code and the apostolic canons, The apostolic canons, which were the law of the church, said if a layman divorce his wife and marry another, or marry a wife divorced by another, let him bs separated from the church. There was one exception in the writers of the early church, Origen, who expressed an opinio n w hi c h was the first sign of a greater laxity, that the innoceut husband whose wife was divorced for adultery might be permitted to re-marry. After the three first centuries of Christianity they began to find a change ; and in the writings of Lactantius it was ldd down that the innocent husband of a wife divorced for adultery might re-marry. When the (-ally Christian; was held to be ie were:an isolated ao, se in ge werned society, marriage the heath , - ""` them, that society to a cor e., society aroundtat-the laws of Christianity - extent left its mark on life, but to lower its tone. not so far as to effect its was the most powerful Which of the Clnistian churches ;iissoluble; but when they mixed with —the eastern or the western ! Ucduuhtedly, in the west ; and where was the laxity with regard to marriage the greatest ? unquestionably in the east ; while in the west the doctrine was triumphantly established that Christian marriage was indissoluble. You then passed through a Long period, until you came to the Reformation ; and his hon. and learned friend, of course, had seen that indissolubility of mar riage was a popish principle, and that with the Reforma tion came in the Protestant principle of dissolubility. And here he must thank his hon. and learned friend for the gratitude he bad expressed on account of his (Me. Gladstone'e) not having lived in the middle ages— (laughter)—and he felt the compliment the more as coming from a gentleman of such broad, straightforward views—(laughter)—of a character like that which was formerly described as "rusticus, abnormis sapiens"— (laughter)—and if he was entitled to take rants among the "subtilissimi docti," he could only say that to no period of his life was he able to attribute his improve ment in that art of subtlety, but to that in which he was for two or three years rapt closely associate I with his hon. and learned friend. (Laughter.) His hon. and learned friend had spoken of the principles of the Re formation, and be had read a passage which the house understood was quoted from the Reformatio Legum. But it was not quoted.from that work. The Reforinatio Legum was the first that really opened the fl )(Agates, and let in divorce wholesale, and he was sure that when the house found what was established on the authority of the Reformatio Legum, they would be cautious how they admitted that it laid down Protestant principles ; for it admits of divorce for five or six kinds of offences besides adultery, and was in that respect worse than the bill of his hon. and learned friend, elthough in two particulars it was better, for it did not violate the principle of equa lity between the sexes, but retained an identity of rights between them, and moreover it treated adultery as a capital off nce. His hon. and learned friend was desirous of founding his bill on the Protestant princilles of the Reformation, and he had got a case in which Archbishop Creamer took part. Now he had the utmost respect for Archbishop Cranmer, who, though not without weak , nesses, was a good and a wise man ; but that any ()pi- Ilion of Archbishop Cranmer, formed as it was in diffi cult and fluctuating times, was to govern opinions at this time of day, was a proposition so ex‘ravagant that it ought not to be pressed upon them. His hon. and learned friend bad in his speech given them a ninth beatitude—(laughter)—he had laid it down that blessed is the man that, puts his trust in the received version— (laughter) —that is, blessed is the man wha did not exer cise the faculties and the judgment which God had given him; nay, more, his hon. and learned friend was not satisfied in giving them a ninth beatitude, but he had given them a new article of faith, for ho said that when the Protestant churches all wont together they could not possibly be wrong. (Hear, hear.) Now, whether his hon. and learned friend was right or not in saying that when all the Protestant churches went together they could not be wrong, the fact was that this was a case in which the Protestant churches had not gone together ; not one. ("Hear, hear," and laughter.) His hon. and learned friend said that by tbo law of the Church of England until the sixteenth century marriage was dissoluble ; but he (Mr. Gladstone) did not know on what authority that assumption was founded. His hon. and learned friend said that until the case of Foljambe in the sixteenth century, and all through the reign of Elizabeth, marriage was dissoluble by the ecclesiastical courts ; and if that were so it determined the character of the Reformation ; but the "Reformatio Legum" never acquired the authority of law, and it was a vital point for his hon. and learned friend to show that a divorce was a great protestant principle of the law of England in the time of Elizabeth. He brought forward a proof of that a passage from Salkeld, in which it was said that the ancient divorces were divorces "a vinculo nuatrimonii," and therefore it was to be inferred that there were divorces "a vinculo matrimonii" before the Reformation ; but he (Mr. Glad stone) would assert that loose and random words like those, accompanied by no reference to any author, were simply worthless and without value. It appeared by a tabular statement which he had before him that in the reign of George 111., from the year 1760 to 1799 the number of divorces was 95 ; the next 31 years down to 1830 slowed 82 divorces ; and from that time down to 1855 the number was 99. If it was considered how great had been the extension of the wealthy class into this country to which alone a divorce was a possibility, it must be a matter of congratulation that the practice bad spread so slowly. Although he had trespasse Iso largely on the patience of the house, he must yet say a few words on the religious part of the quesion and some thing on the varied effects which were likely to be the result of the measure. He felt, with his noble friend the member for Leicestershire, the hardship and injustice which would be inflicted on the clergy if this bill passed as it stood. He confessed that he did not believe that the house would back the Attorney General in this design of compelling the clergy to do an act against which their consciences and their principles revolted ; but if the house should back the Attorney-General in thus compelling the clergy to the performance of a duty against which they conscientiously and earnestly protested, why then farewell to all peace within the church ; and his noble and learned friend who came before the house enunciating his glib doctrine of obedience to the law, would bavo done more to destroy the union of the churCh than if be had voted with the hon. member for Sheffield on every division against every regimes donum, or every grant for ministers' money. He protested against such a limitation of con science, and be would assert that if they and the laity wore to have consciences, they must look on the church as being governed by something more Christian than that house. He protested against a doctrine so degrad ing as that the religion they professed, in its spiritual matters and in the handling of its great mysteries, was I to be cut and carved at the wish and pleasure of his noble I and learned friend or of an y ma j or it y o f t h at h ouse what ever. Ho did not deny the high functions of the Houwi of Commons. That house might be a consenting party to, and add its authority to whatever regulation was in troduced into the religion of the state; but neither the l principles of law or religion permitted them to do any thing in the way of remodelling great spiritual questions. One word on the great social question which was in volved in this measure. He must say that he believed that the bill committed a fatal error in the mode in which it shaped and directed its enactments. But the great error of all was in its principle, and the effect which it must be feared it would have on the people of England. He did not say whether the effect would be I slow or rapid. God grant that it might be slow, lie I did not exactly understand the significancy of the quo tation of his hon. and learned friend when he said, " lliacos intra muros peccatur et extra ;" but it had occurred to him that it ought to refer to the lax state of society with regard to divorce both in town and 1 country. (Laughter.) He owned that he did not take 1 a sanguine view of the condition of this country with regard to the large class of dangerous evils. The evils of prostitution could hardly be greater iu any other ; and as regarded another evil of that chess— nameTy, incontinence before marriage, it was so preva lent both in town and country as to humble us to the dust when we considered with how little strictness our Christian obligations were. observed. But there was a bright aide of the question ; for as regarded the lower class in this country, and especially with regard to those who, living out of London, were removed from tempta tion, the observance of the marriage tie was faithful in the highest degree. If it was true that there was a de• plowable laxity of chastity before marriage, coupled with strictness after marriage, that was a fact which required explanation, and an explanation of it might be found in the known indissolubility of marriage by the law of Eng lend—(heer)—and every man and woman in England, and still more in Ireland, who entered into the marriage state, knew that they were entering into a tie and an engagement that was indissoluble. He concluded by declaring that he would resist this measure, because be believed it was not only retrograde in its character, but full of dangerous consequences to our social system ; doubtful as regarded the construction of Scripture, be cause it was undoing what Christianity had done for us, and bringing us into a state of laxity with regard to mar riage which Christianity did not recognise. Sir G. GREY, after expressing his admiration of the speech of the right hon. gentleman, and his with that it had been delivered on the previous evening, declared his intention of not entering largely on the Scriptural part of the question, believing, as he dP, that exercitations on doubtful passages of Scripture tended rather to weaken than to establish the authority of the Scriptures. He bad considered the Scriptural part of the question, and had no hesitation in saying that no binding or inflexible rule was laid down on the subject. He would, in the first place, notice what his right hon. friend called the precipitate course of legislation on this matter. Instead of the subject having now been brought under the con sideration of Parliament for the first time, it had been frequensly discussed in one branch of the legislature, and commented on in various publications ; and he thought the time bad arriven when, a bid having been sent down from the other house embodying the de liberate convictions of that house, the opportunity should be taken of effecting what he considered a great improve ment of the law. His right hon. friend had intimated that the country did not under:stand the question, and that he bad received a petition from Cornwall founded on the supposition that a law was about to be passed under which divorces might be granted if people should quarrel. (Laughter.) Mr. GLADSTONE—It was not a petition. Sir C-. GREY—Then it was a letter from some cor respondent of the right lion, gentleman, who must have greatly enlightened him as to the facts of the case. If the correspondents of his right hon. friend entertained he should deeply have regretted the thisct h a e rr s e e d d a i n: j g c s n u o:t , d i the on vc t:i i r i : l e i p c o h 2 i l t i i e o u trustedvzhicli would woui havedisp dispel prevented absurd illusion. (hear.) He had listened to the greater part of the speech of his riehthon. friend with the highest interest and admiration, but with the most unfeigned and unbounded astonishment. His right hon. friend treated the measure as an intended innovation on the law of England, never heard of until the present time—affirmed the indissolubility of marriage, and condemned the bill as partial in its operation. Now, he was rather surprised to hear such argurnen ts advanced by his right hon. friend. In 1850, owing to complaints which had been made of abuses and scandals connected with the existing law and practice of granting divorces, a commission wasappointed by the Crown, consict:ng of gentlemen of great learning and experience, to inquire into the law of divorce, and the mode in which divorces could be obtained. That com mission proceeded on the notoriout fact that divorces were attainable—that the law and practice of Parliament sanctioned divorces—and their duty was to inquire and suggest the method by which that end could to attained. The report of that commission was presented in 1853, and in 1854 Lord Aberdeen's Government, of which his right hon. frletel was a distineuished member, le troduced a bill on the subject. (Hear, bear.) That bid —which was presented to the House of Lords by the then Lord Chancellor was entitled, •` A Bill to transfer the jurisdiction iu matriusonisl oatmeal to the Court of Chancery and to establish a Court of Divorce." That bill was read a second sime and committed, and was abandoned in the middle of July, not because it was too late to proceed wish it, but because the testamen tary jurisdiction could not be carried al ,og with it. That bil was identical in its principles and in its most important provisions with the bill now under discussion. That bill proposed to establish a court of divorce, and provided that certain facts being e,tablished, the court should pronounce a divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved. That was precisely what was done by the present bill. A- great deal had been said as to the intol erable hardship which would be placed on the clergy in compelling them to marry divorced persons. Now, there was no such clause in the bill, and the only bill at all relating to the subject was copied from that introduced by Lord Aberdeen' s Government. He was afraid the memory of his right hon. friend was not so good as his imagination. At that time none of the scruples which he now felt could have weighed upon the mind of his right hon. friend, or he would not have consented to the introduction of such a bill. His present convictions could only be of recent date, for he was pursuing a course diametrically opposite to that which be took three years ago. Descending from the high theological grounds which had been taken, he wished to consider the bill with reference to the dictates of reason and the requirements of human society. An attempt had been made to attach an exaggerated importance to the mea sure, and some hon. members considered it a great in novation on the law of marriage and divorce, and that divorces would be obte.ined in ca , es in which they were not now granted. The noble lord the member for Leices tershire (Lord J. ?den ere) took a most exaggerated view of the cao., threatening the country with all the evils which had been introduced into France, and pointing out the effect of the Prussian law of divorce, assuming that the same results would fnlloW in this country, forgetting that the law of divorce under the present bill would be essentially different. His right bon. friend had im pugned the statement of his hor. and learned friend (the Attorney-General), that the object of the bill was to give a legirlative form to what hal been the practice of Par liament, and quoted a passage from the report of the commissioners, stating that by the law of England the compact of marriage was indiesoluble ; but he omitted to quote the conclusion of the passage, which stated that the actual dissolution of such contract, when adultery was committed, was so consonant to reason and religion, that where the general law had omitted to give a remedy Parliament had given one by passing a particular law in favour of those who made out their case. (Hear, hear.) The commissioners stated, that from 1701 to the present time the I:3islature had constituted itself into a court for granting divorce i► vincula matrimonii. Lord Lough borough, whose regulations were r e f erre d to th e o th er . . night, - no doubt laid down strict rules to bind persons applying t o Parliament for a remedy ; but the Iloase of Lords, acting judicially in laying down certain rules, gave a direct sanction to such proceedings. (Hear.) The noble lord (Lord J. Manners) observed that it was quite true that two or three bills a year crept through Parliament. Crept through Parliament I Why, they had passed through Parliament with the concurrence and assent of the noble I)rd, for he had made no objec tion to them. (Hear, hear.) Was not the noble lord aware that in 1840, on the motion of the present Secre tary for the Colonies, the house, adopting the course t a ken by the House of Lords, laid down certain rules for regulating the proceedings with regard to divorce bills, and, like the upper house, thus invited parties to seek a remedy which the general law did not grant ? (Hear.) But more than that. Not very long ago a standing order was passed which required that at the commencement of every session a divorce committee of nine members should be appointed, and in pursuance of that order the usual notice had appeared on the votes, and the cornmitte had been regularly appointed session by session for the purpose of granting proper facilities for the passing of divorce bills and avoiding the scandal arising from the repeated publication of details w hi c h must be gone into by some court before a divorce could be obtained. (Hear, hear.) At the pre sent moment there were at least four divorce bids on the table; and if the noble lord had hitherto abstained from opposing such bills because he did not know they were "creeping" through the house, he now invited his attention to those bills in order that he might oppose them if he thought prop°r. Those who said " no" to the present bill ought, if they wished to be consistent, to op pose private bills which embodied the identical principle to which they Low objected. Then, with regard to the question whether the course which had been PO long fol lowed by Parliament did not amount to a judicial pro csedintr, and whether it had not constituted itself a court —Sir J. Stoddart and Dr. Lushington, in their evide n c e , etated that the course pursued by Parliament amounted to a judicial proceeding, that Parliament had constituted itself a court, by which, on certain fact 3 being proved, it uniformly, as a matter of course and a matter of right, granted relief to the suitors in the same manner as relief was granted in other courts. But there was the anther; y of the whole human race in opposition to the alleged in• dissolubility of marriage, It had been said that in the Roman Catholic Church marriage was indissoluble. Now was that so? The Council of Trent might, perhaps, bold marriage to ho indissoluble ; but the Roman Catholics bad a convenient mode of dispensing with the doctrines of that church. Thera wasa supreme authority, called a dis pensation—an admission that it was impossible tornain tain the doctrine unimpaired that marriage was indis soluble. The question was not whether there should he a new law of divorce. The main principle of the bill was not to alter the grounds or causes on which divorce was grant'-d, but to alter the court before which the suit was to be brought, and to allow a woman to sue for a divorce on the ground of adultery and desertion. Toe effect of the alteration in the law would be to give all parties an equal and cheaper remedy than now existed. It had been said that if this measure should pass there would be 10 divorces where there were now only ten. Now, if there was anything in that argument, it only showed that there were 90 persons out of 100 who were at present unabls to obtain relief. (Hear.) Having stated the general principle of the bill, he would just advert to one of its details, that which alawed parties who were divorced to marry again after divorce a vinculo had been granted. He had seen some petitions against the bill as regarded re-marriages. As the question had been stated to the house by gentlemen who had spoken, it would seem that the only desire of the clergy was to be freed from the necessity of performing the marriage ceremony over two persons, one of whom had been divorced under this bill. They said the clergy objected to perform the marriage ceremony of the church over persons whom they termed the guilty parties. Now, that was not the real lehj sction that was made. The objection was founded on the indissolubility of marriage. They said in effect that though an innocent husband had suffered the greatest wrong that that could be inflicted on him by his wife, yet being a married man they were not bound to recognise the law of the land in performing the mars riage ceremony when the innocent husband or his wife was married. The right hon. member for Oxfordshire shook his head and dissented from that view, but there was an able exoz,neut elsewhere on this subject, and be had obtained from the j lurnals of the House of Lords the identical motion submitted to them embodying the views of the clergy on this subject, and which was reje ,ted by a niej nity of 78 to 25. The clause was as foil ows Provided, nevertheless, that no clergyman in holy orders in the Church of Eagland shall, after the passing of this act, he liable to any censure in any court ecclesi astical or civil, for refusing to perform the marriage ser vice over any person or persons who, after being mar ried and divorced, shall seek to be married again during the lifetime of the husband or wife from whim they have been divorced under this act." Why it was clear that that placed the innocent husband or wife under the ban of the church. He only wished to pot this matter in its true light. The question would have to be discussed when they got into committee, but he trusted they would not have to decide it, but that the parties who took that view of the case would find that their ground was untenable and that they would not present to the house so•extreme a demand as that which was submitted elsewhere. But let him say this bill im posed no new obligation whatever. Iu all the cases in which there had been a divorce that obligation of the clergy had existed to the fullest extent as it would exist after this bill was passed. It would be more open to parties to obtain divorces, and therefore there would he probably more persons who, having been divorced and wishing to contract a second marriage, would present themselves to have the ceremony performed. It was only a question of degree, and not of principle. Any one of these four persons who bad their divorce bills now be fore Parliament, every one of which bills he had no doubt would become law in a few days, might present himself, with another person with whom he wished to contract marriage, to the parish clergyman, who would be obliged not by this bill, but by the law as it at present stood, to perform the ceremony. He did not wish to say more. He had only wished to bring back the house to the region of corn non sense, and to show that the law which had been assumed to be the Divine law of marriage and divorce, was a mere fiction of the imagination. He hoped that the house and the country would be disabused of those misconceptiong with regard to this bill, which had been so industriously circulated, and that the house would assent to the second reading of this bill. (Hear.) Lord LOVAINE defended the practice of the church, as c ontradistinguished from the principles laid down in the present bill. This bill extended the power of getting a divorce only to a tow, and the measure as far as it went of a popular measure was totally inefficient and absurd. fle believed that this bit would never be acceptable to any one who had any respect for the feelings of those who went against the practices of the aduLerer and the adulteress. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL entirely agreed with Mr. Gladstone that the discussion of the religious part of the question was scarctly fit for an arena like that, and that it was more fit for the closet of the divine, or the library of the scholar. But the question had been discussed elsewhere, they had the opinion of the heads of the church on the suljsct, and there was undoubtedly the weight of authority that the marriage tie was disso luble ; and the right hon. gentleman was obliged to al ' low that even in the early ages of t he church this doctrine was held. But undoubtedly that doctrine at the present day was held by at least a great portion of the church. Any gentleman. who wished far it might anJ much valuable information in the report of the committee, and the! committee recommended the adoption of the measure now under the consideration of the house. But assuming that they satisfied theineelve3 that there was nothing cmtrary to religion in the course they proposed, then came the practical question with reference to the effect of the mewure on the social condition of the pe op l e, and certainly he was rather surprised at the n o bl e lord the member for Leicestershire, who last night descanted in terms of much indignation at the idea of would 4 1. introducing a change w hich, accordin g to him produce almost unive rsal immoralit y. He spoke the measure would dissolve the framework of society ; and he based his opinion on the result of the facilitating of divorces in Germany by the law of that c , untry. The noble lord referred to the speech of -.Baron Gerlach, E h o wiug the frequency of divorce in Pt u4aia ; but he did not say that in Prussia divorce was allowed fora grea number of causes, while by this bill the right of divorce was confined to cases of adultery. They had, however, an illustration nearer home, much more apposite—that of Scotland, where the law of divorce went much farther than was proposed by this bill, although stopping short of that ( f Prussia. In Scotland, divorce was allowed in cases of adultery or continuous desertion ; and it did not appear that this facility produced those frightful conse quences which were apprehended by the opponents of the bill ; nor were all the people. running after divorcee. It appeared that in five years there were only 95 cases. 'although the expense was only between 20/. and 301.; and he had yet to learn that the people were more immo ral than those of this country. Looking at the matter in a practical point of view, the question for the house was whether the present state was desirable or not-- whether they were prepared to stay where they were, to retrograde, or to go forward. They who contended that marriage was indissoluble could not consent to a legi lative divorce ; for if to grant it at all was contrary to the Divine law, they would never consent to pass a divorce bill. Would they go beck, and abolish divorce altoge ther, or retain the present law, which gave a remedy to the rich, but not to the poor It was objected that the new court would be very expensive, that it would lead to all sorts of collusion, and that dissolutions of mar riage would be very frequent. It was true the bill did not go as far or bring divorce as 1)w- as it might ; what it did accomplish was to substitute a judicial legal tribunal for an a:otnal ms extraordinary ltgislatoee one. As it stood the bill went sufficiently far, for it was easier to extend the provisions of such a measure than to abridge them. 11° csuld not coincide in tee extravagant ideas of the expense entertained by some members, but believed the bill would afford a much more extensive remedy than the present at an expense not too great. If that were so, what wea the real objection to the second reading ? As it was said, this was a coercive measure ; but as the Home Secretary had remarked, it made no change in the law with regard to the clergy, but left them in exactly the same position as they were at present. The clergy ba d no more right to complain of this bill than of the system which had existed for the last one hundred and fifty y e ars. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that the bill (supposing always a person had satisfied himself there was no violation of religion in its adoption) was one for which they had sufficient grounds if legisla' tion was desirable ; and legislation was desirable, for the present state of things couln not and ought to exist. Mr. HENLEY thought that Sir G. Grey bad given all the principal arguments that had been advanced the "go by," whereas be had added nothing to the real ar guments, which had been fully borne out by the repre sentations of so many of the clergy that marriage was indissoluble, and he held therefore that their view of the case ought at all events to be respected. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman then directed his attention- to this question' whether, if marriage were indisia luble, it was prudent to apply that principle to all classes of the community (liesr, hear.) Mr. WALPOLE, as one of the commissioners, upon whose report the bill had been founded, expressed hie intention of giving it his support. Any person unacs quaiuted with the laws or history of the country, that had heard the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr' Glsdatene), would have thought that Parliament wa s about to introduc e a bill t o unse ttl e a ll th e sanct i t i es of the marriage tie, and to lower the position of wows°, below her present e l eva t e d s t an d ar d , w h ereas t h e r eal truth was that divorce was not to be granted upon any ground except th a t f or w hi c h it was now accor d e d , a nd that this was proposed to be done by one good court of law, instead of the three courts which were at preseet, entrusted with the g ran t o f di vorces. Th e course °I divorce ft vinculo as prop sed by the bill was exactly the same as that of the present law, and would 1 1 granted for nothi ng e l se th an f or adultery on the par to the wife, and the part of the husband in certain ease?. Substantially there was not the slightest atom of dig ference between th e causes of divorce, or the results which were to fl)w from such divorces, between tb° bill and the law as it at present stood. Mere w as nettling, therefor e , i n th e proposal which wouldiaia lead to such opinions as had been expressed respectieg the widespread demoralisation and profligacy which It was said would be sanctioned and fostered by the mea t sure. Mr. NAPIER had come to the conclusion that adultery woe, according to Scriptures a ground for the dissolubility of marriage. His opposition, however, to this bill was upon the point of remarriage. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL briefly replied to the arguments of previous speakers. The hon. member for Surrey had, he said, drawn his arguments from the Old Testament, and had challenged him (the Att o r ne y-Gene' ral) to produce a case of intermarriage subsequent to adultery in any of the books from Genesis to Malachi' He thought he co u ld fi n d one i n w hi c h a d u l tery follo wed by murder resulted in intermarriage. (Hear.) But as th° speech of his rfght hoe. friend the member for Cozier ( ' University had; like Aaron's rod, swallowed up all th e rest, he should content himself with following very briefly his right hon. friend's arguments. His rightholl. friend had transcended himself on the prosent occasioet and yet he must vote for this bill unless he wished to stultify all his own recorded acts and opinions when A cabinet minister in 1853 and 1854. The present bill We e the same as that which h a d rece i ve d th e approbation of the cabinet in 1854, and which when he (the Attorney' b General) attempted to b r i ng i n aga i n i n 1855 , th e hon. gentleman said was an attempt to make politics, capital, and should not have been tried, except w ith certainty of success. But what had his right hon. friend produced on the present occasion, as his crowning ergo' went against the bill ? A 'book written by an obscur e proctor, in an ecclesiastical court in Ireland. (g r ' Gladstone : No, no,) Why, it was published in Dublin , and was no doubt the work of some Roman Catholic proctor. (Laugh ter. ) Mr. GLAIHTONE—The editition from which quoted was published in Dublin, but it was printed I° years after the original puhlication. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—WeII, we would take it as having be e n wr itt en an d pu bli s h e d i n L on d on , a° as being worthy of all the commendations of his right hon. friend. But, what were his facts, which had CO'; verted the Cabinet Mi n i s t er o f 1854 i n t o t h e e l oq uent denouncer of his own bill in 1856 ? "Who would not laugh, if such a man there be; Who would not weep"— But he would not finish the quotation. (Laughte r :„ ) Having r e pli e d t o M r. Gl a d stone ' s argument as to the law of di vorce not b e i ng i n agreement the opinions of the early reformers, the Attorney' General proceeded to say that this bill contemplated e remedy for adultery when coupled with desertio n ' But he beLeved the house had heard quite enoug, ll „ of the subject. (Loud an d genera l cr i es of " Hear, hear. / He called upon the house to say whether they would O W declare that marriage should henceforth be indissolub le ' or whether th e y wou ld procee d upon the principle they had acted upon for so many years, and extend it to All classes. The house then divided— For the second reading 2Ol Against it Majority in favour of the bill ILLICIT DISTILLATION (IRELAND) BILL. The bill passed through committee. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. lIIYTER a new writ wag ordered for the Falkirk Burghs, in the room of SSG Merry, whose elec'ion had been declared void. THE NEWS FROM INDIA. Mr. SPOONER—I wish to ask the noble lord if be will inform the house whether he has received so' despatches from India ? Lord PALMERSTON—The despatches have genet ° the Lidia-house, so we cannot receive them ; but rai t right !awl. friend the President of th e B Jar d of C on trol bas as some private letters from C a l cu tt a, B om b ay, a nd Madras. Toe substaace of them was given is the ttle' graphic despatches which have been received ; no even t of any importance had taken place different to those air flounced in the tel.fzraphic despatches. Sir. T. O'BRIEN_Ma y I ask whether Delhi 0 taken Lord PALMERSTON—At the receipt of the las t telegraph Delhi bad not been taken. The house adjourned at five minutes past two. LONGEVITY AT FOLKESTONE.—A Miss Ann Cook 1 0 just died. at Folkestone, at the advanced age of 104yearso having lived under five crownel heads. [ADVERTISEMENT].—HoIIoway's Pills the most power ful Antidote to Dieease Extant.—Toseph Quinnell, of Woolbeding, Midhurst, Sussi.x, expresses his deep gra titude to Professor Holloway br the benefit be bag derived from the u s e o f hi s reme di es , h av i ng su ffered for two years from extreme debility and indigestion; caused by a severe cold, disabling. lain from wo r k ; be was for some time an inmate of Brighton Hospital and Chichester Infirmary, but to little purpose ; he then tried Holloway's Pil's, and in a short time they had the effect of restoring and invigorating the entire system.- - Sold by all medicine venders throughout the world ; nt Professor Holloway's E , tabliihments, 244, Strand , London, and 80, :Maiden-lane, New York ; by A. Stamps , Constantinople ; A. Gaiditry, Smyrna ; and E. Muir , Malta. BIRTHS. OF A SONS On the 30t•h ult., at Cleveland-square, Hyde-park, the wife of Edmund A. Pontifex, Esq. On the 30th nit., at Leytonstone-house, Essex,lhe wife of T. Fowell Buxton, Esq. OF A Denetrruu. On the 31st ult , at Thurloe-cottage, Barrington-road , Brixton, the wife of Mr. F. W. Moore. Oa the 30th ult., at Dappas-hill, Croydon, the wife of Mr. Henry Chasemore. MARRIED. Oa the 30th ult,, at All Soul's Church, St. Blatylebone. Major W. Henry Larkin, 2d Bengal Grenadiers N.J., to Louisa, the third d aug h ter of Dr. Southey, of 10, Harley . street. D 'ED. At the residence of his eldest eon, at Hellesdon, nea r Norwich, on the 29th ult., William Frederick Augustus Delano, Esq., of 10, Eaton-place south, London, Treasure r of the County Courts of Kent, &0., aged 64. He died surrounded by his family, by whom he was very tenderly On the 281 h ult., in London, the celebrated Blind Tra. yeller, Lieut. James Holman, R.N., F.S.A., &c. Ori the 30th ult., at 30, Western Villas, Blomfield-roa d ► Paddington, Samuel Jacob Simmonds, of 48, Fenchuroh• street, aged 51. On the 31st ult., Margaret Mary, only surviving dauglr ter of Sir WM. J. Newton, of 6, Argyll-street, aged 32. On the 30th ult., at 12, Mount-row, Berkeley-squar e o Mr. George Hutchinson, aged 65. - - - LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 271 s Sun Office, 14°4 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the ennui/ of 2lidthuta, Saturday, August 1,18 g. ti rro rn gent galle Miss after Past truly and Perfo in th, the( on T 1 0 Bth; of 2s. Pare( Roy; gate, I' 111' Blirar 0111c4 and I Seem their their Der c reaso Per c