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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at five o'clock. THIRD RE A.DINGS. On the motion of the Earl of REDESDALE, the fol lowing bills were severally read a third time and passed —Carews Estate ; Newport, A b er l a and Hereford Railway ; Portadown and Dungannon Railway ; S3lis bury and Yeovil Railway ; Whitehaven and Furness Rail way ; Dorset Central Railway (Amendments) ; Rbymney Railway. THE BALLOT. The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from the Ballot Society, and also one from Wtstminster, in favour of vote by ballot. SLAVE TRADE. Lord BROUGHAM said, in the absence of the noble earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he begged to ask the noble earl the President of the Council, whether the Government had received any Mort - nation 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 'nab information having been received, but he would communicate the question to his noble friend. STATE OF THE ARMY IN INDIA. The Earl of EL LENBOROUGH 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 would not have taken place. The present mode was not the way in which war used to be car ried on. When be was a boy he recollected reading with great admiration the gallant conduct of Gen. Gillespie w ho, when a similar mutiny brake 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, hear)—it ap peared that we now had arrived 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 facto, he was not prepared to say that General Barnard could have done more. If those affairs which it was stated had taken place at B & rraekpore and Damdum, 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 would no doubt be able to repel any attacks so long as he remained there. But it was not possible he 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, unless they took away the troops from the Punjaub. His mind was greatly re lieved when he read the last accounts from India in re spect to our army before Delhi as he had a foreloading that an attack would have been made, aryl that they would re ceive the information that it had failed, but was glad 'such was not the cage. lie hoped that General Bar nard bad an appreciation of the difficulty of his position, for when the rains came on he woul I be cut off from all means of support, as in his present position he would be Imprisoned on a narrow etrip 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 commenting in such unmeasured languageupon the present state of affairs in India could serve no other purpose than that 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 seriou,ly excited. The Earl of ELLENBOROUG El said the opinions of others on his conduct could not alter the facts. Toe Marquis of CLA.NRICARDE 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 Ile then defended the c urse:of the Indian Government, and said the great difficulty in India was the want of civil servants. Lard MALUESBURY denied that, because a want of confidence existed in their minds, they were, therefore bound to divide the house. Such a course would be turned against them, and it would be said that they sympathised with the mutineers. He believed such discussions 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 people. The Duke of ARGYLL, on the part of the Govern ment complained that the noble earl had expressed an utter want of nand lence in the local Government of India without knowing any facts which could justify such a conclusion. Ha denied that there was any ground for /dating that there was a want of carriage for the arnsy. There might be a want of a siege train, but he was not prepared to say even 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 arrived it was impossible to say that a marine battalion bad not been embodied. The subject then dropped. The Ccown Suits (Scotland) Bill passed through corn• mittee. Tne Bankruptcy and Real Securities (Scotland) 33i;1, and the Commons Enclosure Bill were read a third time and passed. The Glebe Lands (Ireland) Bill passed through corn xnittee, 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. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clo4.ik. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lord amendments to the following bills were con sidered and agreed to :—Burial of the Dead within the Liberties of London, lla , llngden and Todmorden Road., Kinross-shire Railway, Metropolitan Railway (No. 2.), and South Staffordehirl Water. PETITIONS. Mr. CROSS and another hon. member presented pe titions fro;n the inhabitants of Preston complaining of the scarcity of cotton, and praying for an enquiry into the causes that prevented irs growth in India. ELECTION PROSECUTIONS. Mr. H. BAIL LIE asked the right hon. the Home Secretary if the Attorney-General bad 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 couoty of Mayo Sir G. GII,EY said that the Attorney-General only prosecuted such cases as the committees considered were of sufficient importance and magnitude far 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 had acceded. He did not know the other cases to which the hon. gentleman referred, but he had no doubt if the chairman of any other election committee made a similar motion, that the house would deal with it when made according to its merits. PROBATE AND LEITERS OF ADMINISTRA- TION (IRELAND) BILL. Tnie bill V 18.3 committed pro forma, for the introduc- Coo of amendment,,. REVISING BARRISTERS (DUBLIN) BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. NAPIER, at considerable length, stated his ob jewions to this bill. It would have the effect of depriv. ing one of the present revising barristers of Dubli❑ (Nlr. Shaw) of hie office without compensation. He moved that the house rzo into committee on this day month. Mr. J. FITZGERALD resisted the amendment. A discussion 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 The house went into committee. On the first chase, Mr. NAPIER. moved, as an amendment, that the power of appointment should be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice, and that he should appoint one in add{i• tion to the one already appointed by the Lord Liente ttant. The ATTORNEY-Q-ENERAL for IRELAND op posed the amendment. contending that the English sys tem was not so much approved of as to warrant them in adopting it for Ir land. It would be an anomaly to have two revWng barristers, one appointed by the Lore- Lieutenant, and the other I.y the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Butt, Mr. EI. Herbert, Colonel French, Mr. I. Butt, and other member.; addressed the house, after which the committee divided For the amendment .............. 63 Against it...... .. .. ..... .... Majority . ................... ........... 88. ....... 25 Mr, NAPIER then moved that the chairman do re. asf6topped by the stand poi t progress A ditcursion ensued, but it n N.g t ing order .of the house ah Continuance toil o'clock. The 13.)ard of lleAt B 1 passed through committee. SLIGO ELECTION COMMITTEE. - Sir J. BULLER, chairman of the committee, brouht up tho report,. It declare Mr. Somers not duly elected at the last &fiction, and that the Right Hoe. J. Wy nn , was duly elected, and ifught to have been returned. • The usual notice to thu Cork of the Crown was ordered. The other orders were disposed of. Tim house suspended its sitting and resumed at fix o'clock. • THE. ELECTION PETITIONS. Lord STANLEY brought up the report of the s9lect committee appoi n t e d to try the merits of the pet:tion complaining of an undue return for the borough of Ipswich. The committee reported that Hugh Edward Adair, Esq., and John Chevalier Cobbold, Esq , wore duly elected. Mr. COBI3ETI! brought up the report of the select Committee appointed to try the Luerita of _the petit oa , THE SUN, LONDoN SATVRDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1, 1857 against the return for the county of Huntingdon. The committee reported that John Mayer Heathcote, Esq., was not duly elected, and that Edward Fellowes, Esq., was duly elected. The Horr. 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. sassing divorce bills without question. I do not dissem ble that that creates a real and serious difficulty in the case, but this I do say, that of three alternatives —one, that of passing this bill ; another, the continuing to pass private bills as before until we can see our way better ; and the third, that of stopping private acts altogether— the alternative of passing this bill at this time is immea surable, the most dangerous. I frankly own that I serer saw go eater signs—and I mean to adduce some of those signs-. —of the crude state of what may be called the par liamet 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 terests, 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 measurjanow 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 bare to apply to the very incorrect statement of the Attorney- General, that this fixedsystem 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 feeling 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 Ivy, 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 Stowell, 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 obligation?. Thirdly, when the religious 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 eet itself up as a ruler over the consciences of men, and to absolve them from the obligations of marriage which had 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, hear) Having now described the great effect of the bill, I shall proceed to examine 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 ? That no bill of divorce shall be introduced in which there is 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. andl learned friend says that divorce was the prin ciple of the 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 ! for that is the position on which the promoters of the bill take their stand. If you look at the report of the commission upon which this bill is founded, you will find that the sacramental chapter of marriage is the point upon which their report turns. It is contended thatin Roman Catholic times marriage was held to he 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 oha-acter. On the other hand, in the Eaetern 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 nnknown to the law of England. He would merely observe that that was the construction put upon the law by that commission. Hie 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 introducing a new law by this bill ? Why, there could not be a grosser fallacy ; If be were to grant to his hon. and learned friend that his bill was following out Parliamentary pre 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 case ? 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 ; nut 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 spok e , an d un d er w hi c h h e a ll ege d 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 hie hon. and learned friend's bill, partly by its enactments and more by its principle, carry. ing as it did divorce to all elegises 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 he 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 was not surprised that he had not in this re spect followed the example of the commissioners of 1853, who avoided the religious part of the question. But his hon. and learned friend had gone largely into the theolo gical argument, into which he (Mr. 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 (Mr. 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 biil in such a form that they were not competent to deal satisfactorily with the reasons for and against it. The patience of the house could not allow time or oppertunay for such a discussion, which was only suited for the closet of divines, or a synod of theologians. He was, however, compelled te touch upon it—usisati-faotorily as it neces sarily must be. His hon. and learned friend pointed with great exultation to what he seemed to think funda dawental discrepancies between those who contended no the authority of Scripture that marriage was not disso luble. In reference to the Greek word ropyda, 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 Quay terly, put upon the word a different construction, cm stituting it to mean idolatry or apostacy. Now the writer in the Quarterly did not giv e a n y - interpretation. lie discussed various views given by others, without offtr• ing any judgment in favour of the oce construction or the other. But what he (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to point out was this—his hon. and learned friend quoted these three several constructions, as if they bad been destruc tive of each other ; whereas, so far from their being op- 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 1 point, and in that respect be (Mr. Gladstone) contended all the three constructions agreed. If they interpreted it to mean idolatry, or apostacy, or adultery, or mar riage eith a foreign person, they mast remember that the Jews bad particular laws of their own, and which ever construction of the word sropesia was advanced, it was capable of being made conformable with the law of the Jews, but had no bearing upon 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, be would ask him to consider the discussions between those who supported the contrary view. Here 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-General and the hon. mem ber for Hertfordshire. The hon. member for Herts 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 rerearkai le that he must quote them : " The argument was, that as the exception 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 who 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 excepte d the case which was provided for by the Jewish law, but thought it unnecessary in another place to introduce the excep 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 Jews, and 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 verse in St. Matthew did constitute 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 horn and learned Attorney-General, in flat con tradiction to that, threw the verse overboard, and en 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 as bearing upon this question. Some though': 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 than 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. Thera was another body of persons—and this was the view adopted in the Scotch law—who gave it to both parties, whether innocent or guilty, provided there was no intermarriage between the gulty parties. There was a sixth party that permitted such inter marriages ; a seventh 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 net 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. (Hoar, hear, and a laugh.) There wan he believed, a feeling amongst cer tain religious p eo pl e th a t our marriage law was drawn too tight ; that by relaxing it in the manner here 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 bid do 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 the woman's adultery, and it gave relief, not in ease 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 theca 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 fur 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 Scripture 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 existed 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 be 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.) Hie 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 showiug, 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 implicit that you are to force their constructi on on t h e consciences o f the clergy, who, if they s a y i t i s contrary to the 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 btearnyd of buthtah have h we nuesabsaefldd t;o neverthelesshowbe coull they say to the wife, "You married to your adulterous hus band, compel you to live with him." There was this difference between his mode of construing Scripture and the Attorney -General's—that be (Mr. Gladstone) did not ask the house to stand upon any ar gument, ingenious or not ingenious, he might construct from any tsxt. The lights of history, the records of an tiquity, the lives of those who followed our blessed Lord had immense in his view, i n d e t erm i n i ng th e trueseeof weight,scriptual authority. The hon. and !earned member for Dundalk had given his construction of the scriptural authority, which it was difficult to answer (though heh hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General anticipated, quoted the Council of Trent.) With regard to the mai n p o i n t i n th e case , th e y had with them the authority of hi s h on . an d l earne d edno h t' had anticipated, his friend the Attorney - General--and 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 tire text of St. Matthew as giving a license of marriage after adultery, they placed St. Matthew b conflict on the point with the other Evangelists 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 Gos pel of St. Matthew was known to the Gentiles, and yet according to that and the doctrine of the 'non, member for Hertford, this essential and vital point in the Chris tian law of marriage —whether it might be dissolved fur adultery—a most important matter in the application of Christianity into the disordered, society of Rome, when the relations of the sexes waSiitiost dissolute, was kept a secret from them for many generations, and never pro claimed to them—but on the understanding of the Attor ney-General as to Mark_ that it was not mentioned then 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 Herts said tbat the punishment of death was not inflicted by the Jewish law except the parties were discovered in flagrante de licto. The hon, member was the first that had made that discovery. If ho would look to the chapter of Deuteronomy touching upon adultery, he would see that the punishment of death was to be inflicted on the incontinence not merely of a married person, but of one even who was betrothed. History, historical testimony, and the primitive and early testimony of the Christian church, was vital in this case. He therefore humbly propounded this as the true construction of the verse of St. Matthew. Our Lord was speaking to the Jews, and as the Jewish law provided the punishment of death in case of adultery, it was impossible the verse could refer to re-marriage during the life of the parties. With regard to history, he made this proposition bolily, that for the first 300 years we had not a shred or vestige of divorce with re-marriage for any cause what ever. The tendency of the early church was to forbid, to prohibit second marriages in all cause whatever. This was clear from all the early writers. But they lied 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 be separated from the church. There was one exception in the writers of the early church, Origen, who expressed an opinion which was the first sign of a greater laxity, that the innocent husband whose wife was divorced fur adultery might be perenitted to re-marry. After the three first centuries of Christianity they began to find a change ; and in the writings of Lactantius it was hid down that the innoce et husband of a wife divorced for adultery might re-m any, When the Early Christians ' were'an isolated 9- ;d self-ge verne d society, marria ge was held to be ie, dissolu bj e; tot when they mixed with the heathen o c cer tain txtert la; °s its mar k on the la -es of Christianity— not suit f . a d st ie societyaround to effect ffect it them, liftbut to lower its t one . to a s that society Which of the chrietian churches e”tt the meet powerful —the eastern or the western ! Undoubtedly, 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 ling 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 be must thank his hon. and learned friend for the gratitude he had expressed on account of his (Mr. Gladstone's) 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 " rthaicus, abnorrnis sapiens"— (laughter)—and if he was entitled to take ranee among the "subtilissimi docti," he could only say that to no period of his life was ho able to attribute his improve ment in that art of subtlety, but to that in which he was for two or three years most closely associated with his hon, and learned friend. (Laughter.) His hon. and learned friend had spoken of the principles of the Re formation, and he had read a passage which the house understood was quoted from the Reformatio Legum. But it was not quoted from that work, The Reformatio Legum was the first that really opened the fleceigates, and let in divorce wholesale, and he was sure that when the house found what was establi-hed on the authority of the Refornatio 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, Although 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 offence. His hon. and learned friend was desirous of founding his bill on the Protestant principles 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 opi nion of Archbishop Crammer, formed as it was in diffi cult and fluctuating times, was to govern opinions at this time of day, was a proposition so extravagant that it ought not to be press e d up on th em . Hi s 'hon. and learned friend had 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 he said that when the Protestant churches all went together they could not possibly be wrong. (Rear, 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 bad not gone together ; l not one. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) His hon. and learned friend said that by the 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 Foijambe 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 matrimordi," and therefore it was to be inferred that there were divorces "a vincelo matrimonii" before the Reformation ; but he (Mr. Glad stone) would assert that loose and random words like those, accompanied by no re f erence t o any aut h or, were simply worthless and without naive. 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 showed 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 question 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 beiieve 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 have done more to destroy the union of the church than if he had voted with the hon. member for Sheffield on every division against every regium donum, or every grant for ministers' money. He protested against such a limitation of con science, and he would assert that if they and the laity were 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 6 to be cut and carved at the wish and pleasure of his noble and learned friend or of any majority of that house what. i ever. He did not deny the high functions of the House of Commans. 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 I principles of law or religion permitted them to do any thing in the way of remodelling groat 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 slow or rapid. God grant that it might be slow. lie did not exactly understand the significancy of the quo tation of his hon. and learned friend when he said, " Iliacos 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 country. (Laughter) He owned that he did not take 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 in any other ; and as regarded another evil of that close— namely, incontinence before marriage, it was so preva lent both in town and country as ter humble Us to the dust when we considered with how little strictness our Christian obligations were observed. But there was a bright side,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• plorable laxity of chastity before marriage, coupled with strictness after niarriaee, that was a fact which required explanation, and an explanation of it might be found in the known indissolubility of inarriaae by the law cf Eng land—(bear)—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 deelaring that he would resist this measure, because he believed it was not only retrograde in its character, but full of dangerous consequences to our social system ; doubtful au 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 wish 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 be did, that exercitations on doubtful passages of Scripture tended rather to weaken than to establish the authority of the Scriptures. He had 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 lecislation 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 had arrives when, a bill 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 understand the question, and that he bad received a petition from Cornwall founded on the supposition that a law was about to he passed under which divorces might be granted if people should quarrel. (Laughter.) Mr. GLADSTONE—It was not a petition. Sir G. GREY—Then it was a letter from some cor respondent of the right hon, gentleman, who must have greatly enlightened him as to the facts of the case. If the correspondents of his right hon. friend entertained these absurd views, he should deeply have regretted the carrying of tho proposition which would have prevented this discussion, which he trusted would dispel such an absurd illusion. (Ilear.) He had listened to the greater part of the speech of his right bon. friend with tire 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. Nov, he was rather surprised to hear such arguments 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, consisting of gentlemen of great learning and experience, to inquire into the law of divorce, and the mode in which divorces could be obtained. That corm mission proceeded on the notoriout fact that divorcee were attainable—that the law and practice of Psrtiarneet sanctioned divorces—and their duty was to inquire and suggest the method by which that end could to attain, d. The report of that commission was presentel in 1853, and in 1854 Lord Aberdeen's • Government, of which his right hon. friend was a distinguished member, in troduced a bill on the subject. (Hear, hear.) That bill —which was presented to the House of Lords by the then Lord Chancellor was entitled, " A Bill to transfer the jurisdiction in matrimonial causes to the Court of Chancery and to establish a Court of Divorce." That i bill was read a second sirne end committed, and was I abandoned in the middle of July, Lot becauss it was toe late to proceed with it, but because the testamen tary jurisdiction could not be carried al erg is ith it , That bid was identical in its prineipleS and in its most • important provisions with the bill now under dhcussion. That bill proposed to establish a court of divorce, and provided that certain facts being eetablished, 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 ell 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 gored 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 iniroducti in of such a bill. His present convictions could only be of recent date, for he was pursuing a course diametrically opposite to that which he 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 greet in• novation on the law of marriage and divorce, and that divorcee would be obtained in cases in which they were not now granted. The noble lord the member for Leices tershire (Lord J. Manner.) took a most exaggerated view of the case, 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 follow in this country, forgetting that the law of divorce under the present bill would be essentially different. His right hon. friend had im pugned the statement of his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney-General), that the object of the bill was to give a legislative form to what had 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 indissoluble; 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 legislature had constituted itself into a court for granting divorce It vinculo mistrimonii. Lord Laugh borough, whose regulations were referred te the other night, no doubt laid down strict rules to bind persons applying tt Parliament for a remedy ; but the House of Lords, acting judicially in laying down certain rules', gave a direct sanction to such proceediugs. (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 1 ml, 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 taken 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 comrnitte 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 hich 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 proper. 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 now 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 csedine, and whether it had not constituted itself a court —Sir J. Stoddart and Dr. Lushington, in their evidence, stated that the course pursued by .Parliament amounted to a judicial proceeding, that Parliament had constituted itself a court, by which, on certain facts 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 theauthori , 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, hold marriage to be indissoluble ; but the Roman Catholics bad a convenient mode of dispensing with the doctrines of that church. There wasa supreme authority, called a dis pensation—an admission that it was impossible to main tain the doctrine unimpaired that marriage was indis soluble. The question was not whether there should be a new law of divorce. The main principle of the bill was not to alter the grounds or causes on which divorce was granted, 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. The 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 unable to obtain relief. (Hear.) Having stated the general principle of the bill, he would just advert to one of its details, that which allowed parties who were divorced to marry again after divorce a vinculo had been granted. He had seen sonic petitions against the bill as regarded re-marriages. As the question bad 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 iebjection that was made. The objection was founded on the indissolubility of marriage. They said in effect that though an innocent husband bad suffoied 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 lend in performing the mar riage ceremony when the innocent husband or his wif e I was married. The right hon. member for Oxfordshire I shook his head and dissented from that view, but there was an able exponent elsewhere on this subject, and he had obtained from the journals of the House of Lords the identical motion submitted to them embodying the views of the clergy on this subject, and which was reje - Ited by a majority of 78 to 26. The clause was as follows : " Provides', nevertheless, that no clergyman in holy 1 orders in the Church of England shall, after the passing of this act, be liable to any censure in any court ecclesi- ' aetical or civil, L,r refusing to perform the marriage ser vice over any person or persons who, after being mar- 1 ried and divorced, shall seek to be married again during the lifetime of the husband or wife from whom 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. Ile only wished to put 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. Io all the cases in which there had been a divorce that obligation of the 1 clergy had existed to the fullest extent as it woul t el exist after this bill was passed. It would be more open to parties to obtain divorces, and therefore there would ho probably mere persons who, having been divorced and wishing to contract a second marriage, would present I themselves to have the ceremony performed. It was only a question of degree, and not of principle. Any one i of these four persons who had their divorce bills now be- I 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 common 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 misconceptions wiih 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 contradistinguiehed from the principl es l a id d own i n the present bill. This bill extended the power of getting a divorce only to a few, and the measure as far as it went of a popular measure was totally inef f icient and absurd: He believed that this bill would never he acceptable to any one who had any respect for the feelings of those who went against the practices of the adulterer and the adulteress. not say that in Prussia divorce was allowed for a grey number of causes, while by this bill the right of divorce was confined to cases of adultery. They had, however, an idustrai in nearer home, much more apposite—that of Soothed, where the law of divorce went much farther than was proposed I.)e this hill, although stopping short of that i.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 divorces. It appeared that in five years there were only 95 cases. although the expense was only between 201. and 301.; and he had yet to learn that the people were more ironic" 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 notes 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 legis lative divorce ; for if to grant it at all was contrary to the Divine law, they would never consent to pass a divorce biil. Would they go back, and abolish divorce alte' 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 low as it might ; what it did accomplish was to substitute a judicial legal tribunal for an anoinalene extraordinary I: gislative one. As it s tood. the bill went sufficiently far, for it was easier to exf:end the provisions of such a measure than to abridge them. Ile . could 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 was the real objection to the second reading ? As it wag 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, bet left them in exactly th e same position as they were at present. The clergy bad no more right to complain of this bill than of the system which had existed for the last one hundred and fifty years. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that the bill (supposing always a person bad 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 cOnln 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 bad added nothing to the real ar guments, which had been fully borne out by the r efire' sentations of so many of the clergy that marriage wa g 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` w h e th er, if marriage were indissoluble, !I was prudent to apply that principle to all classes o f the . community ? (Hoer, hear.) Mr. WALPOLE, as one of the commissioners, uP cn whose report the bill had been founded, expressed hi intention of giving it his support. Any person mote: quainted with the laws or history of the country, that had heard the speech of the right hon. gentleman (MA Gladstone), would have thought th a t P ar li amen t we , about to introduc e a bill t o unse ttl e a ll t h e sanct i t i e s 0e _ the marriage tie, and t o l ower th e pos i t i on o f wo ol belew 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 ant ground except that f or w hi c h it was now accorded, Of that this was prop ose d t o b e d one b y one goo d co urt° law, instead of the th ree cour t s w hi c h were at presen t 4 entrusted with the grant o f di vorces . Th e cour se ', beg divorce a vinculo as p ro p se d b y th e bill was ex tol l same as that o f th e presen t l aw, an d wou ld of granted for nothi ng e l se tb an f or a d u l tery on the part of the wife, and th e par t o f t h e h us b and i n certain nae. 0 / Substantially th ere was not the slightest atom of nit; '' e ference betw een th e causes of divorce, or the reso l which were to fl ow f rom such divorces, between ad bill and the law as it a t present stood. . There o',, nothing, therefore, i n th e proposa l w hi c h would f a ded lead to such opinions as had been expressed respectil the widespread dem ora li sa ti on an d pro fli gacy w hi c h I was said would be sanctioned and fostered by the ID° sure. Mr. NAPIER bad come to the conclusion 010 adultery wa , , according to Scriptures a ground for t h in ° dissolubility of marriage. His opposition, howeveci, this bill was up'n the point of remarriage. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL briefly replied to t, 138 arguments of pre v i ous s p ea k ers. Th e hon. member Oita Surrey had, he said, d rawn hi s arguments f rom t h e a Testament, and had challenged him (the Attorney-Genw ral) to produce a case of intermarriage subsequent:: adultery in any of th e b oo k s f rom G enes i s to Mal He thought he could fi n d one i n w hi c h a d u l tery f e lla; by murder resulted in intermarriage. (Hear.) But as tab speech of his right ho r . f r i en d th e mem b er f or 00r i e University had, lik e A aron ' s ro d , swa l lowed up all t' h 1 rest, he should con t en t hi mse lf w i th following 10,i' briefly his right h on . f r i en d' s arguments. His 600'3 friend had transcended himself on the prosent occasio n and yet he must vote for this bill unless he wished • stultify all his own recorded acts and opinions whO lis cabinet minister in 1853 an d 1854. Th e presen t bill W„f the same as that which h a d rece i ve d th e appro bation " the cabinet in 1854, and which when he (the Attorney General) attempted to b r i ng i n aga i n i n 1855, the rig_j hon. gentleman said was an att em pt to make pnlitn capital, and should not have been tried, except witte d certainty of suceeral. But what had his right hon. frien, produced on the present occasion, as hi s crown i ng a rgo d ment against the bill ? A book written by an obset proctor, in an ecclesiast ica l court i n I reland. Gladstone No, no.) Why, it was published in Dob l `l and was no doubt th e wor k o f some Roman Cathn',s proctor. (Laughter ) Mr. GLAD iTONE—The editition from which quoted was published i n D u bli n , b ut it was p r i n ted years after the original publication. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—WeII, we would j it as having been w r itt en an d pu bli s h e d i n L on d o n, an d as being worthy of all th e commen d a ti ons o f his Og g , hon. friend. But wh a t were hi s f ac t s, w hi c h had cf)t verted the Cabinet Mi n i s t er o f 1854 i n t o th e dog°° denouncer of his own bill in 1855 ? " Who would not laugh, if such a man there be; Who would not weep"— Lel But he would not fi n i s h th e quo t a ti on. (Laugh-- to Having replied to Mr. Gladstone's argument a g ,.o the law o f di vorce no t b e i ng i n agreemen t the opinions of the early reformers, th e Attorn l % General proc e ed e d t o say t h at this bill contemplate'll, remedy br adultery w h en coup l e d w i t h d ese rti° A But he believed the house had heard quite evoult, of the subject, (Loud and general cries of " Hear, hen r ,:i He called upon the hous e t o sa y w h e th er they woulddeclare that m a r r i age s h ou ld h ence f ort h b e indissoln".o or whether they would proceed upon the principle $, ) , 1 0 they had acted up on f or so many years, an d exten d all classes. The house then divided— For the second reading Against it Majority in favo ur o f th e bill ILLICIT DISTILLATION (IRELAND) Bl_ LL' The bill passed through committee. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. II IYTER a new writ p, ordered for the Falkirk Burghs, in the room of Merry, whose elec'ion had been declared void. THE N EWS FRONI lA.. b e Mr. SPOONER—I wish to ask lN the D noble lord 1 4 will inform the house wheth er h e has received despatches from India ? Lord PALKERSTON—The despatches h ave gont°o t4; the India-house, so we cannot receive th em ; right hon. friend the President of the B oar d o f Coe p d has some private letters from Calcutta, Bombay, !iv MAdras. Tne substance of the m was g i ven i n the l'eaps graphic despatches which hav e b een rece i ve d ; no o ' o . of any importance had taken place different to those nounced in the tel-wraphic despatches. , Sir. T. O'BRIEN—May I ask whether Delh i taken ? Lord PALMERSTON—At the - receipt of the las telegraph Delhi had not been taken. The house adj Jurned at five minutes past two. LONGEVITY AT FOLKESTONE.—A Miss Ann 00 0 '• ( 0, just died at Folkestone, at the advanced age of 1041e * having lived under five crownel heads. [ADVERTISEHENT].—HoIIoway's Pills the most p- .sver. , ful Antid o te to Disease Extant.—Toseph Quinnebt o , Woolbeding, Midhurst, Suss e x, express e s hi s deep co titude to Professor Holl owa y f or th e b ene fit In 41 derived from the use of his remedies, having 80 8 .' 0 , for two years from extreme debility and indiges"%e caused by a severe cold, disabling him from work ; 0 ,1 was for some time an i n m a t e o f B r i g ht on H osp it a l e fo Chichester Infirmary, but to little purpose ; he t ' b t be tried Holloway's s, and is a short time they hod effect of restoring and invigorating the entire syste° e t Sold by all medicine venders tbrouwbout the world; Professor Holloway's Establishments, 244, Stto London, and 80, Maiden-la n e, N e w Y or k ; by A. Sta l 7; Constantinople ; AA. Guidicy, Smyr n a ; a n d E. I Malta. BIRTHS. OF A SON, tb e On the 80th ult., at Cleveland-square, Hyde-par-' wife of Edmund A. Pontifex, Esq. svg ° On the 30th ult., at Leytonstoue-house, Essex, 00 of T. Fowell Buxton, Esq. OF A DAUGIITER, r - WI/ On the 31st ult., at Thurloa-cotta se, Barrington"' e Brixton, the wife of Mr. F. W. M oore . 0 0 On the 30th ult., at Duppas-hill, C roy d on, the wif e Mr. Henry Chasemore. Tee SOLICITOR-GENERAL entirely agreed with Mr. Gladstone that the discussion of the religious part of the question was scarcely 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 subject, 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 the church this doctri ne 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 for it might find much valuable information in the repor; of the committee, and the! clininittee recommended the adoption of the measure now under the consideration of the house. But assuming that they satisfied themeelves that there was nothing c )ntrary to religion in the course they proposed, then came the practical question with reference to the e ff ect of the measure on the social condition of the p eop l e, and certainly he was rath er surprised at the noble lord the member for Leicestershire, who last night descanted in terms of much ind , gnation at t!)e idea o f introducing a c hange which, accordn to him, would produce almost iiniver ,, al immorality, li e spoke as the measure would dissolve the framework Of society ; rOt -L4 • and he based hi s o p inion on the r esult of the facilitating LONDON: Printed and Pub li shed by AWED° 0 1 4 °' of divorces in Germa n y b y the law a that c ,uutry. TI of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tlue Sun Ofticee'ff noble lord referred to the speech of B aron G er l ac h, 112 , Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in th e 16'uowiug, the frequency of divorce in P 1 u6sia ; but he did of Middlesex, Saturday, August 1, 1857. MA RR I E D. 1 0 10 0 ; On the 30th ult„ a t All S ou l' s Church, St. MarY t Major W. Henry Larkins, 2,1 Bengal Grenadiers ii i ;jler Louisa, the third d aug h ter of Dr. Southey, of 10, street. D ee ° At the residence of his eldest eon, at Hellesdoll,,,oo Norwich, on the 20th ult., William Frederick Aug_: f irer, Delano, Esq., of 10, Eaton-place south, London, T .. „.o°'`dioa of the County Courts of Kent, &c., aged 64, -",, e c ierlf surrounded by his family, by whom he was very t e n laved. T ".. On the 28th ult., in London, the celebrated 131 in yeller, Lieut. JarQoB Holman, P.N., F.S.A., &c. , I.oo l ' On the 30th ult., at 30, Western Villas, Blornfie' ( "rcir Paddington, Samuel Jacob Simmonds, of 48, Fe n° street, aged 51. On the 31st ult., Margaret Mary, only surviviegre ter of Sir Wm. J. Newton, of 6, Argyll-street, ag e , it iar e ' On the 30th ult., at 12, Mount-row, Beikeley -o ` l Mr. George Hutchinson, aged 65. 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 PALMERSTON—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 hi' appeal. EDUCATION. Sir J. PAKINGTON said he bad 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 hon. baronet ananswer in the course of the evening. THE MAIL PACKET SERVICE. Lord NAAS asked the Secretary 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 contract., notwith standing the modifications recommended is 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 conjracts were based ; and he was not aware whether or not the hon. gentleman concurred in what was said. Most of the services had been very long. The Peninsular 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 LOCKE, 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. PAKINGTON, 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 India❑ army beyond ;hat which was already referred to, an,l 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 s'Ate ments made on the Indian debate on Monday last, in which Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Vernon Smiih, Sir E. Colt.- 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 HOPE severally presented peti tions against the bill. Mr. GLADSTONE—Sir, in justification of the course which was adopted last week when a considerable por tion of this house demanded further time for the consi deration of the marriage question, I could 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 toe present advanced period of the session, he replied, on the contrary, that he saw no rea3on 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 certaitly 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 in succession speaking against the bill—a circumstance almost unparalleled, according to my re collection of the practice of the House of Oommons. I shall not speak of the ability of these speeches : 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 last consummated by the declaration of the Secretary of State, who actually complained that the division did not take place last night, adding that there were symptoms of premeditation connected with the prolongation of the debate. (S:r G. GREY made an observation.) My right boo, 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, 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 tically silent, in order that they might arrive at a divi -ion. I do not lay a charge or blame upon any one, fo r 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 ment, and I have not said what has escaped me to cast blame onany one, but rather to ask ju-tice for those whe 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 b.ll 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 years such a subject has 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 excited, 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, has checked and prevented the preparation of petitions. I have myself received letters stating that Go vernmeat appeared determined to press on this bill, and that theref ire the writer must forward his petition with such signatures as he could hastily collect. One gentle. man writes from Cornwall that it it were not for the shortness of the time he could get his petition sigeed by 8 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 as it came down from the Lords is thoroughly 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 v running, " until death da us part," it should be, "until we t wo quarre l . " Th e 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 cAmeption 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 provisiona of the bill. Very true; but can there possibly be a batter 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 it 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 Par:iament 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 nolle 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 be proceeded with. It is forsooth that we may have something to show for our session. ,e r ie heeesnty of not p resent i ng a bl an k li st to t h e coun ty, is the reason why the bill is to be pressed forward under the present unfavourable circumstances. I say that we hav e , I subject, lest it no right to make character for this house in that manure idle, and that in the said - sho, V ild e b are not to hurry on an important cut of doors that we were estimationme etb of the public we should lose caste. Believe , tien of our countrymen I the true and la3ting estima sheeasnres through . the ahnadvWeyi bdoecrUomaenld durability of ( rapidity 4 with which Weill, tlrr a f ter all, depend, not on the witL w t; , house, but on the criality those measures when they But it is said that we cannot approach this bill ing the alternative, without. consideri: g e a m ' t e li c ' a n s al b d e e e r t : the previous practice of .Parliament, which, as stated by my bon, and learned friend, bas been in the habit of Cie k .~ . - I b - 131 Um, and _Pert to tl the coa Wai the 'bite UPOi Such uPor Ines men The , tag eboil