The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

CONTINUOUS SERVICE MEN IN THE NAYT.

Earl GRANVILLE, in reply to Earl Talbot as to
whether the seamen who had entered during the
war for ten years' continuous service had lately been
discharged, was glad to have the opportunity of
stating that nu breach of faith had been committed.
Under the engagement made by these men they
could not obtain their discharge except on payment
of 12/., but any of those who now wished to leave
were informed they might do so without paying any.
thing ; so that a boon had been conferred on them,
instead of a breach of faith committed.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, OD moving the second
reading of this bill, briefly explained the state of
the law of marriage in this country before and after
the Reformation. In 1850 a commission was ap.
pointed to inquire into the whole subject, and it was
on the recommendations contained in the report of
that commission that the present bill was founded.
He proposed to create a new tribunal, consisting of
the Lord Chancellor, one of the Chief Justices, and
an ecclesiastical judge. According to the present
practice, before a divorce a vinculo matrimonii could
be obtained, proceedings must be taken itt the
ecclesiastical court, a verdict must be obtained agoinst.
the adulterer, and the facts must be established,
at the bar of their lordships' house. His
proposal was to substitute one tribunal to invest:Our
the matter once for all, and that the proceedings
should take place by viva voce evidence. Whatever•
interpretations might be put upon texts of Scripture,
he believed it would be most. unwise to attempt to-
extend divorce to anything short of adultery. The?
bill would give the wife a right to apply for a divorce.
in the case of incestuous adultery, bigamy, and un-
justifiable desertion. He had not retained the clause
which prohibited the adulterer marrying the adul-
teress. He believed it calculated to do more harm
than good. By the standing orders the action of
crim. con. was a necessary preliminary to a divorce;
but he proposed that hereatter the action should be
founded on a divorce that had been obtained. This
was the present law of Scotland. The jurisdiction in
cases of divorce a menet: et thoro would remain as
now with the ecclesiastical court. After a divorce so
obtained by the wife her status would in all respects
be that of an unmarried woman. If he succeeded in
this measure he should have accomplished a great
object. His lordship then moved that the bill be
read a second time.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, while be•
was willing to vote for the second reading of the bill,.
he must oppose in committee the clause which
permitted the guilty parties to be united in legali
marriage.

Lord LYNDHURST was most anxious for the success:
of the bill. He believed it was a scriptural doctrine
that marriage might be dissolved in the case oU
adultery; but our law on the subject was derived;
from the system which prevailed when the country
was under Roman Catholic rule. One hundred anti
fifty years ago recourse had been bad to palliatives,
but these means were available only for the rich.
The law ought to embrace both rich and pool,.
Upon this principle it was impossible that any solid
objection could be made to the alterations proposed
by the bill. Instead of facilities for severing the
marriage tie being demoralising, he contended that
the present law led to great immoralities among the
poorer classes of the people, because they now had
no redress against the adulterer. But he was of

MAY 23, 1857

opinion that the bill did not go far enough. One
objection he had to the bill was its great inequality
between the two sexes. He called upon their lord-
ships to do justice. The more their lordships con•
sidered this part of the measure the more they would
be satisfied of the unsoundness of the argument
urged against women who applied fors divorce on
the ground of adultery on the part of the husband.
But if their lordships could not concur in that sug-
gestion, he hoped they would allow wilful desertion
to be a sufficient ground for a divorce. By deserting
his wife, the man violated the very purposes for
which marriage was instituted. He could not con-
cur with the Lord Chancellor in postponing the
action of trim. con. till after the divorce, because in
many cases the injured party would be unable to
obtain a divorce by reason of the expense, and the
consequence would then be that he would have no
action at all against the adulterer.
Lord WENSLEYDALE said that, for the sake of the
good the measure contained, he would not oppose
the second reading, but he had some misgivings as
to how the measure would work.
The Earl Of MALMESBURY would not oppose the
second reading, but in committee would propose a
clause to prevent the guilty parties intermarrying.
The Duke of NORFOLK should oppose the bill at
every stage.
Lord REDESDALE opposed the bill.
Lord DUNGANNON moved that the bill be read a
second time that day six months.

—The Bishop of SALISBURY said it was true our
blessed Lord did permit separation, but no sanction
was given in the New Testament to divotce a vincula
matrinwnii. He would urge their lordships to sweep
away the privilegia which they were in the custom
of granting, and put themselves in this respect on a
level with the poor man.
The Bishop of BANGOR opposed the bill.
The Bishop of LIANDLer said, although he could
not vote for the amendment, there were some por-
tions of the bill to which he should object in com-
mittee.

The Bishop of DURHAM supported the bill.
The Bishop of OXFORD entered very elaborately
into the scriptural argument on the subject of mar-
riage and divorce, and said that, after having studied
the matter, he was the more strongly brought to the
conclusion at which he had arrived when the subject
was formerly discussed by their lordships. lie
objected to the bill because he thought it was dealing
with a most grave subject in a most imperfect
manner. The bill came before them under false
pretences, because it assumed to give to the poor
man the same law as it gave to the rich, but which
it was impossible it could do.
The Bishop of LONDON altogether disagreed with
the Bishop of Oxford, and felt himself fully entitled
to give his hearty approval of the bill.
Their lordships divided, when the second reading
was agreed to by a majority of 29—the numbers
bring 47 for and 18 against the measure.
Their lordships adjourned at ten minutes past ten
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES IN SHEEP AND CATTLE.

On the motion of Mr. BENTINCK, leave was given
to bring in a bill to amend an act passed in the
session 11th and 12th Victoria, chap. 107; also to
amend an act passed in the session 10th and 17th
Victoria, chap. 82; also to amend an act passes' in
the session 19th and 20th Victoria, chap. 101,
entitled, "An Act to continue certain Acts to prevent
the spreading of contagious or infectious disorders
among s'neep, cattle, and other animals."
The bill was subsequently brought in and read a
first time.