The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-08 00:00:00

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.

Mr. WARREN moved to defer the committee for
three months. He complained of the breathless
haste with which this bill, involving a principle so
momentous, was urged through that house at a late
period of the session, when the energies of its mem-
bers were exhausted. He remarked that the com-
missioners, upon whose report the bill proceeded,
were not unanimous, end that that report contra-
dicted the statement of the Attorney General, that
the bill made no material alteration in our marriage
law, which he maintained, relying upon various
authorities, regarded the marriage tie as indis-
soluble :

He would remind them that this question did not now
come under the notice of the house for the first time. As

766

far back as 1830 the late Dr. Phillimore moved for a com-
mission to consider the state of the law of divorce and
the expediency of enabling persons to obtain divorce
a vincula in cases of adultery by legal process in courts of
competent jurisdiction. That motion was rejected by a
large majority, and he would call the attention of the house
to the opinions of one or two of the speakers on that occa-
sion relative to the dissolubility of marriage. Dr. Pnilli-
more stated that" he wished it to be distinctly understood
that he thought it ought to be the principle of the law that
marriage was indissoluble," and gave it as his opinion that
" the interests of families demanded that marriage should
be declared to he indissoluble." On the same occasion Mr.
O'Connell said " he wished that the poor might he placed
on the same footing as the rich with regard to divorce, but
he would accomplish that end, not by giving it to the poor,
but by refusing it to the rich. The Solicitor-General of
that day said that he was against the establishment of a
court for trying the question of divorce, being persuaded
that if such a court were esta*iahed questions of divorce
would become as frequent as questions of property. Sir
llobert Peel strongly opposed the motion, and he expressed
an opinion that it would be very much better to retain the

of the present system than to make divorce
easily attainable. He had been very much astonished the
other evening to hear the Attorney-General state, in the
commencement of his speech, that under this bill the law
would remain precisely as it had been settled for the last
15) years. That was a somewhat unwarranted statement,
for every one knew that the reason why the Legislature had
interfered to grant divorces was that they could not he ob-
tained in any court ot law. This was very clearly laid down
in the report of the commissioners, where it was stated
that " divorces which resmind the marriage contract are
unknown to our law, and when once that marriage contract
is constituted in a legal manner there is no mode ot putting
an end to it known to our courts of law."

He traced the origin of the " barbarous usage " of
legislative divorces—which sinned, he said, against
the spirit of our jurisprudence and proved the
rule of the common law—to reasons of private
convenience. No obligalion of morality was recog-
nised by him which was not founded upon Chris-
tianity ; if the law of the Gospel was plain there was
an end of the matter, and he insisted that it
declared in plain language the marriage union to be
indissoluble.

Mr. BAINES supported the statement of the
Attorney General, that by the law of England for
the last two hundred years marriage was dissoluble,
by the declared opinion of the Lord Cbief Justice of
England.
Mr. STEUART seconded and supported Mr. War-
ren's amendment.

Mr. GILPIN considered the question as to the
dissolubility cf marriage to be settled. He sup-
ported the bill, but was not anxious with reference
to remarriage, and should vote against the pro.
vision that would compel clergymen against their
conscience to solemnise a marriage between divorced
parties.
Mr. HOPE strongly opposed the bill, which, in
his opinion, would shake the foundations of public
morality.
Mr. ‘VINGFIELD said he had been told that there
had been no decision upon the question whether
clergymen could be compelled to marry divorced
parties. The marriage service authorised the clergy-
man to exercise a discretion. This doubt, he thought,
should be cleared up.
Mr. Commis opposed the bill, as a measure re-
pugnant to the general feeling of the country. To
the opinion of Lord Campbell, that marriage by the
law of England was dissoluble, he opposed that of
Lord Wensleydale, in its very teeth.
_ _

Mr. BUTT observed that many of the objections
urged against the bill would be better reserved for
the committee. He, however, joined in discussing
the principle of the bill, which he supported. Upon
the question of morality, he invited a comparison
between the morality of Italy, where marriage was
indiss:Auble, and that of Scotland, where divorce was
allowed.
Mr. GLADSTONE saiil he considered the decision of
the house one which, however he lamented it, he was
bound to respect; he therefore confined himself to
certain explanations, personal, and in reference to
historical facts in question between the Attorney-
General and himself. The right hon. gentleman
also replied to Mr. Baines, who had asserted that the
bill introduced no novelty into the law of England,
upon the opinion of Lord Campbell
This was answered by an hon. member who quoted the
opinion of Lord Wensleydale. I will answer the quota-
Con from Lord Campbell by quoting Lord Campbell him-
s If; and if any hon. member who listened with admire.
t on to the dictum of that learned judge as it was read by
any right hon. friend will turn to the report of the com-
missioners of 1553 he will there find a diametrically
opposite principle asserted—namely, that by the law of
England, properly so called, there is no such thing as the
dissolubility of marriage, and he will find it signed by the
venerated name of Lord Campbell.

The amendment was negatived, and the house
went into committee on the bill.

The name of the court was altered from " the
Court of Marriage and Divorce" to "the Court of
Divorce and Matrimonial Causes ;" and the proviso
n the sixth clause, that no suit for jactitation of
marriage shall be entertained, was expunged.