The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-04 00:00:00

LAW OF DIVORCE.

Dr. PHILLII4ORE said that are subject which
he had to bring forward was one of great import-
ance, for the Law of Divorce in this country was i
different from that of any other country n Europe.
By the Roman Catholic Church marriage was ele-
vated into a 'Sacrament; and, by a Canon, rendered
indissoluble even in the case of adultery. But in
Protestant Europe the pronouncing of a divorce at
once gave the parties concerned the right of marry-
ing again. In England the case was very different.
The Ecclesiastical Court could only pronounce a
divorce a mensa et thoro, and the party seeking re-
lief entered into a bond that he would not marry
again during the life of the other party. Of late
years a practice had been growing up of applying to
Parliament for each particular divorce. This was
strictly a Bill of Pains and Penalties against the of-
fending party, and was not even open to the middle
classes of society, who could not afford the vast ex-
pence that was incurred in procuring suck an Act.
The first case in which any Parliamentary divorce
was applied for was that of the Marquis of North-
ampton, in the year 1547; he had obtained a di-
vorce in the Ecclesiastical Court ; but the question
arose whether, the Reformation having taken place
since the last case, the divorce was a vinculo matri.
monii as well as a mensa et thoro. The question
was looked upon as so important, that a Commis-
sion was appointed, consisting of Archbishop Cran-
mer and nine others, to inquire whether the Lady of
the Marquis of Northampton was still his wife. The
decision, we understood the Learned Gentleman to
say, to which the Commission came, was, that it was
not safe to consider the divorce as perfect without
an Act of Parliament. Subsequently to that time,
in 1552, or one year before Queen Mary's ac-
cession, a law was passed regulating divorce.
After the accession of Queen Maly there was
a different law ; a Bill was brought in to re-
peal the Act of her predecessor, and the
country was carried back wider the Romish
Ecclesiastical Law. In Queen Elizabeth's reign
there was another alteration, and divorces were
then granted by the Ecclesiastical Courts, and con-
tinued to be so for fifty years. In fact divorces
were granted by the tribunals till the latter end of
Elizabeth's reign, and cases were found yet recorded
of parties who had applied for divorce on the ground
of adultery, and to whom divorce was granted a
vinculo matrimony. In the early part of the reign of
Elizabe h there was nothing to prevent parties from
marrying again ; but iu the 44th year of her reign
the opinion—that it was not lawful for such parties
to marry again—was received in the Star Chamber.
By the suggestion of Archbishop Bancroft it was
declared that all such divorces were only a mensa et
thoro. By a law passed in the 44th year of that
Queen's reign, the authority of the Ecclesiastical Law
was fully restored. The 107th Canon of the Church
declared that—" In all sentences pronounced only
for divorce and separation, a thoro et mensa, there
shall be a caution and restraint inserted in the act of
the said sentence, and the parties so separated shall
live chastely and continently, neither shall they, dur-
ing each other's life, contract matrimony with
any other person. And for the better observa-
tion of the last clause, the last sentence of divorce
shall not be pronounced until the party or par-
ties requiring the same have given good and
sufficient caution and security into the Court
that they will not any way break or transgress
the restraint or prohibition." This Canon was then
fully established as the law, and it was thus fully
decided both by the law and the decision in Fol-
jamb's case, that divorce could not be obtained in
this country except only from bed and board, a
mensa et Moro, and not a vincula matrimonii. This

made the law of England similar to the law on the
subject of divorce in most parts of the Continent,
and it continued in this state till Charles the Se-
cond's time, when the celebrated case of Lord de
Roos occurred, in 1669, and then, by a special Act
of Parliament, a divorce was procured for that
Nobleman. The Duke of Norfolk's case, which was
the next remarkable one, occurred in 1692, which
occasioned great discussion, he being an individual
of great importance. It was in 1692 that the Duke
of Norfolk brought forward his Bill of Divorce; but
the Bill was thrown out; and it was the year 1700 be-
fore he ventured to repeat his efforts, having previ-
ously brought an action for damages at Common Law ;
and then, after protracted debates, the Bill was car-
ried. He Only referred to the measure to show what
was the state of the law and the state of feeling in the
country on the subject of divorce, up to that period.
He found that for a century and a half, from the refor-
mation of Charles the First's reign to the accession of
George 1., there were not more than five Divorce
Bills carried through Parliament. He believed that
would be found an accurate account. Divorce was
never then granted, except to persons of high rank ;
and 'in the Duke of Norfolk's case it was expresily
stated, in the preamble to the Bill, that one reason-
for granting the divorce was, that the Duchess was
barren, arid it was not fitting that such a Noble
family should be extinct. The privilege of divorce
was then exclusively confined to the very highest
classes, and granted to them only as a great favour,
and under special considerations. After the acces-
sion of the House of Hanover, a greater laxity was
introduced, and a greater number of Divorce Bills
passed. From the year 1715 to the year 1775, a
period of 60 years, sixty Divorce Bills were passed;
and from 1775 to 1800, during a period of 25 years,
there were seventy-four such Bills passed. From
1800 up to the present time, he found that there
had been ninety passed. This showed that there
had been a great increase of Divorce Bills, owing
principally, he believed, to the great increase of
wealth, and to the facility with which Parliament
had gradually come to grant such Bills. The great
expence of such measures, and the facility with
which Parliament granted Divorce Bills to parties
capable of paying the expences, made it impossible
that the Legislature should not feel that some altera-
tion of the law was necessary; and several attempts,
all of which had begun in the House of Lords, had
been made to alter the law. In 1771, a Bill was
brought into that House by the Duke of Atholl, the
preamble of which stated that it was a remedial
Bill, made necessary by the scandalous frequency of
Divorce Bills. In 1779 the Bishop of Llandaff,
Dr. Barrington, who was afterwards Bishop of Lon-
don, brought in a Bill; and the preamble to this
Bill stated, that the great frequency of applications
for divorce made some remedy necessary. Both these
Bills were passed through the house of Lords, and
sent down to the House of Commons, where they
were read a second titre, but they were lost in a Com-
mittee. In 1800 Lord Auckland brought in the Bill
which bore his name, and occasioned a great deal of
discussion. That Noble Lord had for the object of
his Bill to make adultery a misdemeanour at com-
mon law, and he urged, as a reason for this, the
same grounds as bad been given by the other Lords
for their Bills—namely, the frequency of adultery
and application for divorce. The discussion on that
Bill might safely be referred to—since the eminent
persons who took part in it were now so far removed
from the scene that their opinions were of great
weight, and of great importance. Ajany of the per-
sons who delivered their sentiments in the debates
on Lord Auckland's Bill, were men whose opinions
would be of value at any time; and, having been
delivered at a considerable distance from the present
time, partook of none of the passions of the mo-
ment, and might serve as a guide to their decision.
Lord Grenville, whose opinion on all subjects de-
served attention, stated, at an early stage of that
debate, that ": his Learned Friend on the Woolsack,
awl the other two Learned Lords who presided in
the Courts of Law had declared that the greatest
abuses were committed, arid that at present there
was no remedy for these abuses ; and that in many
cases there was collusion between the parties, and
that in no instance was there a possibility of ade-
quately punishing the guilty. They found their
proceedings on the Bench, in such cases, a farce
and mockery." This Lord Grenville represented
to be the opinion of the great Law Lords of that
day, and he added, " the Ecclesiastical Courts were
equally deficient, there was no way in which die
injured party could obtain redress, or vice could re-
ceive its punishment. He hail long been sensible
of these truths, nor had he ever been present
when a Divorce Bill was passed, that lie did
not think the House disgraced and degraded."
At another stage of the Bill, Lord Eldon depre-
cated its rejection, " because he was certain that
nine out of every ten cases of adultery that came
into the Courts below, or to that Bar, were founded
in the most infamous collusion, and that, as the law
stood, it was a farce and a mockery; most of the
cases being previously settled in some room in the
City; and that Juries were called to give exem-
plary damages, which damages were never paid, nor
expected to be paid by the injured husband," It
was impossible to !mow that these were the opi-
riions of the law authorities of that day, and not be
convinced that some alteration of the law was ne-
cessary. A year afterwards, on the occasion of dis-.
cussing a Divorce Bill, Lord Russlyn °User ved, that
" applications for Divorce Bills had, of late years,
been so frequently introduced, that they had been
consi'tered as almost mere matters of course. It was
highly necessary, therefore, to check their progress,
and, if possible, to resist the torrent which threatened
to bear down all morality and virtue." These were
the opinions of three very competent persons, two
of them great law officers, and one a distinguished
Senator, and the House would be well aware that
since that time the evil had not diminished,
and now more than ever required a remedy. He
referred Hon. Members to their own experience to
be satisfied that the same defects still existed which
Lord Eldon, and the other high authorities he had
quoted, bore their testimony to the necessity of
amending. That things were still in the same state
he might prove by the recent case of Lord Ellen-
borough's divorce. He did not wish to revive the
unpleasant discussions on that Bill, but he would
remind the House of them to show how incompe-
tent it was to discharge judicial functions. It was
said on the one hand that Lord Ellenborough was
the kindest of husbands; and en the other, that he
had neglected his lady. Some Members spoke of
collusion, and said that Lord and Lady Ellen-
borough came together to seek a divorce; all these
assertions were made by respectable persons, and
showed how necessary it was that some other tri-
bunal should be had recourse to. Testimony,
too, was given on that and other cases, whicu,
without sifting, would never. have been received in
an Ecclesiastical Court or Court of Common Law.
This case was an illustration of- the unfitness of the
House to examine witnesses on such an important
question. But if the House could not examine wit-
nesses effectually, and sift their testimony to the
bottom, what better was it than an idle mockery to
bring a Divorce Bill before it for its decision ? That
House was, therefore,not a proper place for deciding
questions of divorce ; and that opinion would be con-
limed if he stated the great precautions used by
the House of Lords, which were riot used by the
House of Commons, in introducing Divorce Bills.
By one of the Standing Orders of the House of
Lords it was imperatively commanded that no Bill

should be introduced which did not contain a clause
that neither the adulterer nor the adultress should
marry again. This Standing Order was adhered to.
No Bill could be introduced without this clause,
though in the progress of the Bill it was regularly
struck out. Another Standing Order of the House
of Lords of a graver character showed how incom-
petent the House of Commons was to exercise judi-
cial functions, for that House could carry no such
Standing Order into execution. By a Standing
Order, dated 25th March, 1798, it was ordered,
that before the second reading of the Bill, the party
praying for the divorce should attend at the' bar of
the House to he examined, if their Lordships should
think fit, in order to ascertain if there were any col-
lusior►, direct or indirect, or if the act of adultery
were known to the husband, or if there were any
collusion between the wife and him to procure a sen-
tence of divorce before an Ecclesiastical Court, or
procure a verdict at Common Law; and that the
parties might be examined as to how they were living
at the time of the act of adultery—if they were pre-
viously separated, or if the husband performed ail his
conjugal duties. This was a Standing Order of the
House of Lords, and every petitioner for a Bill of
-Divorce received a copy of this Order, and a notice
to attend. Compliance with this Order was, in
truth, dispensed with, but it showed how necessary
it was to have proof that there was no collusion, and
how strict the other House was in providing that
there should be no collusion betwixt husband and
wife. There were other circumstances connected with
the popular form of that House which made it
unfit for such investigations. Such questions were
made the vehicle for expressing popular sentiments.
Let the House recollect that the Divorce Bill of
Lord de Roos was discussed three or four Sessions,
and was made the watchword of a party, it being
considered, as test of the question, whether Charles
11. was to be divorced from his Queen or not. The
Duke of York's party opposed the Divorce Bill, and
it was not supported l y the courtiers and adherents
of Charles 11. The same sort of thing occurred at
the time the Duke of Norfolk's Divorce Bill was
brought in. The Duchess was a Jacobite, and the
Duke a friend of the revolution. She was a Roman
Catholic and he was a Protestant, so that this ques-
tion was made the banner under which party feel-
ings were enlisted. There was even yet canvassing
for opinions and support for such Bills, as were dis-
graceful even in a Turnpike Act. The next point
he would mention was the inequality of the law.—
Nothing was better established as a principle of our
law than that it should be equal for all parties, for
high and low, for poor and rich, and that was the
case throughout the law, except in the law for di-
vorce. He had asked a few days ago the expellee
of a common Divorce Bill, which had nothing pe-
culiar in it, and he was told that the expence was
between 6001. and 7001. That was an expellee
which no person in the middle and lower ranks of
life could possibly submit to. What made it more
galling here was, that if a man went across the
borders into Scotland, or if his wife committed
adultery there, lie could obtain a divorce for 10/. or
15/. He had received this information on good
authority, and he knew that 15/. was the extreme
expence for a divorce in Scotland in ordinary cases.
It was clear, then, that some remedy for our law of
divorce was required; and in speaking of remedies,
he did not mean to go into the question whether
wives should be allowed to divorce their husbands,
which, in case of incestuous adultery, the House of
Lords had permitted ; neither would he enter into
the question whether or not an adulterer should be
allowed to marry again. It would not be right in
him, a humble indiv►dual, to bring forward any spe-
cific remedy ; but he knew that the proposition
he should make had the approbation of others.—
The impression on his mind was, that the question of
Divorce ought to be referred altogether to the
Ecclesiastical Courts; and that they which decided
the separation a rnensa et Moro, should also decide a
vinetdo ntedrimonii. That was his own impression,
and he had the satisfaction of knowing that Lord
Thurlow held a similar opinion. He had stated so
in the debate on Lord Auckland's Bill, in 1800;
or a particular tribunal migh. be appointed to decide
the question of divorce after a decision of the Ec-
clesiastical Courts. Some persons proposed to refer
the question immediately to the house of Lords,
arid allow its decision to be f►nal. There were two
points he was, however, anxious to guard against.
He wished to have it distinctly understood that it
ought to be, in his opinion, the principle of the law
—that marriage was indissoluble. The interests of
families, of the whole community composed of fa-
milies, demanded that marriage should be declared
indissoluble. The next point to which he wished to
advert was this—that in his opinion, no other cause
but adultery should be allowed to be a sufficient
ground for a divorce. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber again referred to the hardship to which people
were now exposed by the impossibility of getting
rid of an unfaithful wife, ar►d instanced in particular
Clergymen, and landed gentlemen of small fortune
living in retirement and out of the bustle and vice
of a town, who might have the misfo►tune of an
unfaithful partner; he quoted the several attempts
which had been made to improve the law in 1771,
in 1779, and in 1800, and concluded by moving,
" That an humble Address be preiented to his Ma-
jesty, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to
direct the Commission, now sitting to inquire into
Ecclesiastical Courts, to take into their considera-
tion the state of the Law of Divorce, into the ex-
pense of obtaining a divorce, and to enquire into
the best means of bringing such case under a legal
jurisdiction."

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL began his re-
marks by objecting generally to commissions to in-
quire into the law, contending that the appointing
of them involved an admission of something re-
quiring to be remedied. He had never approved of
commissions to reform any abstract point of law.
His Hon. and Learned Friend, with all his talents,
had failed to suggest a remedy, and so had other
learned men of great talents. The evil arose out
of our Constitution, which did not permit any Court
to exercise legislative power, which granting a
divorce implied. The Hon. and Learned Member
entered into a brief history of the marriage law in
England, and its difference from the marriage law of
other countries, remarking that marriage was indis-
soluble in Roman Catholic countries. In Rome
there was a tribunal, called the Holy-office w hich
did grant divorces for certain cases, in which the
parties were held incapacitated to contract marriage,
but never granted it for adultery. The Pope had
sometimes granted divorces on political grounds,
but up to the time he was speaking, the Pope had
never, he believed, granted a divorce for adultery.
The Pope did, however, grant a divorce to our
Henry the Eighth in former times, and he had more
recently granted a divorce on political grounds to
Napoleon Bonaparte. Independent of these ca,es,
however, it was not the custom of the Church of
Rome to grant divorces on any account. In this
Protestant State no divorce was ever allowed unless
by the way of a legislative provision, and he could
not, therefore, avoid thinking, that if they adopted
the plan of his Hon. Friend, they would be letting
in a wild, latitudinarian, and mischievous prin-
ciple, not recognised hitherto by any country
in the world Divorces a vinculo mat rimonii
had never been allowed in this country unless after
a solemn investigation in Parliament; but if they
were once, by the institution of a cheap kind of Pie
Paudre Court, to allow all, who had a small sum to
spend, the privilege of being separated a vincido.

»rdrimonii, it would follotty as, IFCCeirati ,4044e-
quence that the lower classes, whose R 1011411,. %Nere,ii
more corrupt,, and whose principles on these etited
tecti were more lax than those of the higher cliised,'
would be continually applying for, divorces, while
the facility of obtaining them •at a small expellee
tvouldbicrease the inntforelity of adultery, and, in-
deed, give eneouragemint to the commission of that
offence. It was said, however, that almost all the
cases 'which came before Parliament at present were
cases in which the parties colluded to procure sr:di-
vorce. Now if the higher classes colluded in Oils
manner—a fact of which he saw no evidence—if
they colluded to procure a divorce, 'when the cost
of that proceeding was greatwould they collude
less when the expence would become comparatively
small? The great question for their consideration
was, whether the law should or should not remain
as it was. And if it was a truth that the Noble
Lord (Eldon) had declared the proportion of collu-
sive cases to be nine out of every ten which came
before Parliament, he confessed it was necessary
the House should • interfere.—(Hear; hear.)—
He denied, however, the justice of the assentor',
that the proportion of cellusive oases was so great,
and he equally denied the propriety of the :as-
sumption, that the, Houses of Lords and Commpni
were unable, by the exercise of their judgment; to
detect the collusiou if it existed, or that their powers
would be delegated with greater propriety to ally in-
ferior Court, constituted in any mossier harever.
He was not disposed .to allow that the House of
Commons did not possess ability, acuteness, um( in-
telligence sufficient to detect any species of collu-
sion; but if the Hon. Member did not think the
power they possessed sufficient for that purpose, he
had no objection to such an olteratien of the stip:l-
ing orders e's would meet the difficulty of the case.
ire believed indeed, it had been too much the habit
of the House of Commons to allow all power of
examination on Bills of, Divorce to rest with the
House of Lords, and, to pass the Bill which they
sent down without inquiry and without any exami-
nation of the evidence for themselves. He thought
this was a bad practice, and had no objection to the
appointment of a Committee for the purpose of. re-
viewing the standing orders, and devising some
remedy for the practice of that part of the subject.
For these reasons, however, he could not support
the motion of his Hon. Friend ; and he thought the
House should not support it, unless it was prepared
to say that in nine cases out of ten which crime
before them at present, gross injustice was done to
the parties in consequence of their inability to:de-
tect the collusion which always existed. That "col-
lusion lie, however, denied; and he also denied the
assertion that of late years any political motives-had
influenced the feelings of those who took part
the discussion on Divorce Bills, or that justice was
not administered there as purely and efficiently as it
could be administered in any Court which the Hon.
Gentleman could devise. Great difference of opi-
nion prevailed at all times among some of the
greatest men and ablest lawyers of the day respect-
ing the propriety of granting divorces at all. Lord
Eldon and Lord Stowell—men agreeieg so much
in talent, in legal knowledge, and brotherly Wee-
tion—were, he might say, at daggers drays lug on
the question whether granting divorces did or•did
not tend to increase adultery, or whether divurees
should, under any circumstances, be conceded to
any party applying for them. In the midst of
this conflict of opinions, the Honourable Mem-
ber called on the House to part with the
sufficiency they possessed for the consideratioe of
such cases to a tribunal of some kind or other
which would be subject to all the objections made
against the House, without possessing any of the
firmness, talent, and judgment, which enabled them
to overcome those difficulties which, in such curses,
occasionally present themselves. Although, there.
fore, he *as riot averse to any inquiry which might
have for its object an improvement of,the meths;id of
passing Divorce Bills, through the House; he was
riot disposed to lust with the power which the
House possessed with regard to Divorce cases, and
for these reasons, if the lion. Member pressed the
motion, he should give it his decided negative.
Mr. O'CONNELL was also opposed to the ore-
don. He would willingly equalize the facilities of
the poor to obtain divorces with those possessed by
the rich suitor, but in a different manner from that
proposed by either of the Hothead Learned Gentle-
men. He would do away altogether with. the pOwer
in either rich or poor to obtain divorces, and in
do rig so felt he should be merely acting in the spirit
of the common law, as it was enforced previous to
it,tliiag estßo an etflormation. In the Catholic Church marriage
v canonse indissoluble
of
contracttire pro so
cwashu
Church,
as tthey
accord.
had been explained by various commentators. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke last was in
error in stating that the Catholic Church granted
divorces similar in kind to those sanctioned by the
Legislature, arid was particularly unlucky in quoting
the divorces of Henry VIII. and of Bonaparte, as
instances of the exercise of Pupal jurisdiction in such
cases. It was well known to the readers of history,
that so far from the Pope having granted ilerity
VIII. a divorce from Queen Catherine, Ilia refusal,
of it was the probable ground why the Hon. arid
Learned Gentleman was not in the habit of attead-
ing mass, instead of the ritual of the Church of
England; at least Clement's withholding that divorce,
hastened, if it did not altogether bring about, the
separation of England from the Church of Rome.
Mr. SPRING RICE would support the u
because he wished to see some measure arranged
which would alike affect rich and poor.
he SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that
his Hon. and Learned Friend had not at once brought
forward a specific Bill, with the details which were
intended to provide a remedial measure for the
grievances of which he complained, instead of sug-
gesting this reference to a Committee already con-
stituted for a different purpose. For his own part,
he should be very sorry to see any court constituted
to decide questions of divorce in this summary way;
the effect would be to make this grave . question in
such a court as common us ordinary differences were
in the present tribunals. Heades much dislike ws
any man to see one law established for the rick, and
another for the poor, but he feared -that the remedy
now suggested, instead of benefiting the poor, would
aggravate all the evils which it was intended to heal,
Dr. LUSHINGTON could not consent to levee
this subject referred to the Ecclesiastical Commis.
sion, the business of which was at present so com-
plicated and perplexing, that it heti more difficulties
to surmount than it could well accomplish, without
this fresh addition to its labours. This would be
very well understood when he informed the House
that the principles on which the Ecclesiastical
Courts of this country were acting were, except in
some few trifling instances, the same now as they
were at the time of the reformation, notwithstanding
the great change which had taken place in many of
the relations of society. Many opinions had pre-
vailed among eminent arid learned persons upon the
very grave question of the power of humour trite,.
oafs to exercise a summary jurisdiction over ques,,
dons of marriage and divorce, upon which he meant
to say nothing more at this moment, than to point
to them, as showing the difficulties which en-
compassed the consideration and the impolicy of re-
verting it to a Commission already overloaded with
other business. A good deal had been said about
collusion of the parties to a Divorce Bill. To that
remark he should only reply, that having been pro-
fessionally engaged on the one side, or upon the
other, in all such cases except, perhaps, five or six,
dining the last fifteen years, he could positively de-
clare, that a suspicion of that kind could only have
attached to three or four of them at most, tnit not
to one as far as his own direct knowledge neut.—
(Hear.)—He had no wish to adopt the Scottish
law of marriage or divorce in this country, arid he
concurred ntchuileitulgt,vittLlris
the
obneotutrearble and Learned
course
would
dhe
cuss the subject upon the introduction of a spk.eille
Bill, instead of by promoting, us at present, a getterel
disquisition, which could not lead to a practical result.
Mr. WYNNE supported the motion, and sail
that he really saw no nicongrudy in eecounnending

this subject to the attention of commissioners, who
were above all others so competent to consider it in

all its bearings. It• was impossible to enter into all
the necessary details previous to the divorce hi that
House.' Remedies had been proposed to correct
the evil, but all had hitherto failed of success. He
did not concur in the suggestion which had been
thrown out, that the Learned and Hon. Gentleman

ought to have brought in a Biil on the subject. A
Bid must have been founded on some previous in-
quiry and discussion; and he therefore thought the
course taken the best. _ _

Sir ROBERT PEEL said the terms of the mo-
tion had taken him somewhat by surprise, and the

. _
subject was one which required great consideration.
Though he was not prepared to give an unqualified
opinion against the motion, yet he felt some surprise
at the arguments which had been offered in its fa-
vour. It bad been said that that House was not a

competent tribunal in cases of divorce, and that in
nine cases out of ten collusion took place. He

thought, however, that that statement was much
exaggerated, for be could not give the name
of collusion to a case where a wife, who

had been guilty of adultery, and wronged an
affectionate husband, offered no opposition to his
procuring a divorce. With respect to the objec-
tion taken to the present system on the score of
its giving relief only to rich people and excluding
the poor from its benefits, he must say that he did
Rot see how that objection was to be removed by
any other system. Inquiry must in all cases be
wade into the characters of both husband and wife,

and, whatever might be the institution, great ex-
pense must necessarily be thereby incurred. It had
been said that in some courts a divorce might be
obtained for 15!. He did not think, however, that
facilitating the means of obtaining divorces would
have any thing like a moral effect upon the country.
lie agreed in the propriety of the general principle
of the law, that there should be no divorce at all,
though at the same time he was of opinion that some
relaxation should be allowed in certain cases, and re-

lief given to parties by the special interposition of
the Legisl rture. The Hon. and Learned Gent. pro-
posed to refer the subject to the Ecclesiastieal Com-
mission, but he (Sir R. Peel) was opposed to such
a course. That commission was appointed for per-
fectly different purposes, and the gentlemen compos-
ing it had given their time and labour gratuitously;
Parliament would not, therefore, be justified in im-
posing additional labour on them, which might pro-
tract their inquiries for two years longer. For these
reasons be hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
wad adopt the suggestion which bad been made to
Lint, and not press the motion to a division.—(Hear.)
Lord F. L. GOWER did not concur in the mo-
tion, and as little in the opinion expressed by the
Non. and Learned Member for Ciare, that in no
ease whatever ought divorce to be allowed.
Dr. PiIILLIMORE replied.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it lO2
Majority against the motion —s7
STATE OF THE LABOURING POOR.
On our re-admissions to the gallery, we found Mr.
SADLER on his legs, moving for leave to bring in a
Bill to better the condition of the labouring poor of
the British empire, but, owing to the noise occa-
sioned by the strangers rushing into the eery, the
Hon. Member was for several minutes very indis-
tinctly audible. He began by observing that the
great importance of the subject was a sufficient apo-
logy for his introducing it to the consideration of the
House, and that though it was one which had often
engaged the attention of Parliament, and which oc-
cupied at this moment the investigation of three or
four' Committees, he conceived himself entitled to
claim in some degree the attention of the House to
it on the present occasion. He would not have sa-
tiafied his own conscience, nor would he have
gone back satiafie& to his constituents, if he bad
not brought it under the notice of the House, even
at this advanced period of the Session. He had for
' a long time, and to the best of his ability, applied
timsolf to the consideration of the best means for
ameliorating the condition of the working cla%ses—
he had consulted the highest authorities—he had
conversed with those who had more extensive op-
portunities than he had enjoyed of inquiring into and
investigating the matter, and the consequence was
that he had arrived at the conclusion that no mea-
sures wciuld succeed in producing a permanent ame-
lioration of the condition of tire working classes iu
this country, unless they were combined with mea-
sures for amelioatting the situation of the working
'glasses in Iteland.—(Hear.).=-They had heard much
lately of the necessity that existed for. assimilating
completely the laws and the institutions of the two
eettetsies, with a view to give to Ireland the full
benefit of the English law. Now, he would con-
tend, that if that principle were to be carried into
effect with regard toasty laws, it should certainly be
serried into execution with respect to those laws
which applied to the situation of the working and
labouring classes in the two kingdoms. He would
maintain that Parliament should act upon that prin-
iiple by introducing into Ireland a legal system of
charity, a compulsory provision for the relief of the
poor in that country, so modified as to suit the pecu-
liar circumstances in which Ireland had been placed
in consequence of the want of such a provision. Such
naeasure would essentially benefit the working
classes in England, who were at present frequently
thrown out of employment, particularly in the manu-
facturing districts, by the multitudes of Irish
labourers who came over here and depreciated the
value of their labour by overstocking the market.
The tendency of the poor laws introduced into
Ireland would be to raise labour to its just value
there as well as in this country. The two countries
were now drawn so closely together, that it was int-
pousible that the law, as regarded the poor, could
any longer remain upon a different footing in both of
them. In the harvest ,field, at the forge, and at the
loom, the English labourer found the Irish labourer
coming in and interfering with him, and throwing
him out of employment. In support of the prin-
ciple that the poor were entitled to relief, he could
refer to many ancient and high authorides ; but he
should content himself with referring the House on
this occasion merely to some of the leading modern
jurists. He would, in tire first instance, appeal to the
authority of Grotius to prove the justice of that im-
mutable principle, that the poor were entitled to re-
lief. The Hon. Member here read several passages
to that effect from the works of that jurist. He
.proceeded to observe that Puffendorf held the same
doctrineibut he should not fatigue the House with any
quotations from his luminous works on the subject. He
then proceeded to quote the opinions of Montesquieu,
Locke, Blackstone, and Paley, for the purpose of
showing that the poor had a right to legislative re-
lief. ITestles these great authorities, he was happy
to say that expediency also lent its service to the
claims of justice. He understood that even in the
pulpit the doctrine had been laid down that the poor
ought to be left to mere casual relief. Such doc-
trine he was surprised to hear from any quarter; but
still more was he surprised to find it emanate from
those who had not only theological, but also chari-
table functions to exercise towards the public. Op-
tional charity did justice to no party, neither to
those who gave nor to those who received it.- First
of all, the benevolent did not form either the most
wealthy or the most numerous class of society; and
next, the benefited were degraded by receiving that
to which they had a claim of right, as an eleemosy-
nary contribution ; for in his opinion, the poor man
who, during the early period of his life, had acted
an honest and industrious part, had as much, if not
more right to be sustained at the close of it, at the
public expense, as the highest functionary who re-
tired upon a superannuation. It was, however,
stated that we ought to do our best to extirpate po-
verty. To that he would answer that it was not
possible to extirpate poverty, and that if it weer
possible, it was not, perhaps, desirable ; for poverty,
or the dread of it, was the main spur to human in.
dustry, and had supplied the motive for the most
valuable discoveries in philosophy and science. But
then it was said, " if you cannot extirpate poverty;
you must teach the poor to save." Pow could the