The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-29 00:00:00

confined to the wealthier classes, from the expense attend-
ing it.
With these facts before me, I felt it my duty to inquire
carefully into the grounds on which such divorces have
hitherto been unknown to our law, and into the compara-
tively moral and social benefits which may be expected to
arise either from a change in the existing law, or from a
strict and consistent observance of it.

There can be no doubt that the present law was founded
on a belief that such divorces are contrary to the law of
God ; and I was therefore bound to satisfy myself that at
least they are not forbidden by that law before I could ad-
vise an alteration of our own which should make divorce d
vinculo a common legal remedy.
Christ himself has spoken on the subject ; and his words,
which have been reported by three of the Evangelists, have
been interpreted differently by very learned and holy men ;
some holding that in those which declare man and wife to
be one flesh, and that man may not put asunder those
whom God has joined together, he pronounced the mar-
riage tie indissoluble ; while others have contended that
another text from St. Matthew's Gospel not only permits
the putting away of a wife who is guilty of fornication,
but allows both parties to marry again. Before I was ap-
pointed on this commission, I entertained thislatter opinion,
and my prejudices were in favour of it; but the attention
which I have since felt it my duty to give to the subject
has forced me to change it. I refrain, however, from argu-
ing this point, which has been so ably discussed by others
far better qualified for such a task than myself.
The only apostolic injunction which has reached us on
this subject is opposed to divorces. From the First Epistle
of Paul to the Corinthians it would appear that they had
-written to him on the subject of marriage, and in the
seventh chapter, after treating on various points, on which
he says, " I speak this of permission and not of command-
ment; 'he adds' " And to the married I command, yet not I
but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband.
But if she depart let her remain unmarried, or be recon-
ciled to her husband ; and let not the husband put away
his wife."

In the first four centuries after the Apostles, the habits
engendered under the Jewish and Roman laws in favour
of divorce appear to have driven the fathers of the
Church into some admission of the practice, but their
unsettled and conflicting opinions on the subject prove
that they were unable to speak directly in favour of
it as, of diviie or apostolic precept. Some thought that
divorces might be given for other causes than adul-
tery, which is clearly against our Saviour's injunction ;
some that the innocent party alone might marry again;
some that the man and not the woman ; both opinions
being opposed to the complete dissolution of the marriage.
At length, that which appears to be the true doctrine was
generally accepted by the Church, that if a woman is
guilty of adultery the husband is justified in putting her
away from him, but that the marriage nevertheless re-
mains indissoluble. The hardness of men's hearts, how-
ever, induced them to cling to the old practice, and the
Church of Rome, becoming corrupt and covetous, gave
way in favour of those who could purchase such relief ;
and, holding still the sound doctrine as to the indissolu-
bility of marriage, made the word of God of no effect by
their traditions, and afforded such extended opportunities
for declaring marriages null and void as enabled all who
could conciliate the favour of the Church to have theirs so
pronounced. The early reformers gave in to the licence
which had thus grown up ; and it is remarkable, that men
who professed in all matters to take the Scriptures for
for their guidance should in this have gone quite beyond
what is therein sanctioned and allowed divorces a vinculo
for other causes than adultery. It is hardly possible to
conceive a stronger proof of the danger of admitting the
principle of such divorces, or of the certainty that, when
once admitted, it Is sure to degenerate into more extended
abuse.

Passing from the consideration of the subject as a re-
ligious question, I proceed to treat it on moral and
social grounds, and to inquire into the comparative advan-
tages which may be expected either from a change in the
existing law, or from a strict and consistent adherence
to it.

To arrive at a just conclusion on these points, the
question ough to be considered in its general bearing on
the morals and happiness of the whole community, and
not merely as regards the hardship which a change of
practice may appear to inflict in particular cases ; and I
am convinced (having, I trust, fairly and candidly inves-
tigated the subject) that the middle and lower classes have
been far more benefitted than injured by having such
divorces practically denied to them, and that it is very
questionable whether, on the whole, the wealthier classes
have derived any advantage from having been able to pro-
cure them.

First, as regards the more numerous class to which
divorces have been denied, I believe that there is no class
in any country in the world in which the marriage tie is
held more sacred than among them, or where an unchaste
wife is more generally reprobated. They feel that once
married, they are united for better for worse. Hasty and
unkind words and treatment are on this account frequently
forgiven on both sides from a sense of necessity, and per-
sons of uncongenial tempers and habits, once united, learn
to accommodate themselves to each other. Introduce fa-
cilities for divorce, and an immediate change for the worse
may be predicted. A door for escape will appear to be
opened upon every disagreement. A new temptation, by
the offer of a lawful marriage by the adulterer, is offered
to infidelity to a class to which removal from a former
home a few hundred miles affords an almost certain con-
cealment of guilt from those among whom they settle,
and an escape from the consequent shame. Ido not hesi-
tate to declare my conviction, that not only a serious in-
jury would be done to general morality, but that the
misery and unhappiness which would arise from homes
deserted and children abandoned would be bitterly and
extensively felt. Moreover, in determining this question,
it is our duty to inquire whether the present state of the
law is felt as a grievance—whether it is generally com-
plained of. It is a remarkable fact that, notwithstanding
the prejudice which might naturally arise among the
middle and industrial classes from such divorces being open
to the rich and denied to themselves, there has never been
any popular demand for a change in the law. I cannot
think that we are justified in forcing such a change on
1 those who do not ask for it, and particularly as the present
state of the law as affects them has answered so well for
their general happiness and morality.
I next proceed to inquire into the effect of the present
practice on the wealthier classes, the extent to which it
has been carried (on which the necessity for a continuance
of it may by some be thought to depend), and what benefits
have arisen from it, or might be expected from its discon-
tinuance. From the publicity given to cases of divorce a
vinculo, each having to go before the Ecclesiastical Courts,
before a jury in the civil action, and before the two Houses of
Parliament, a very erroneous impression has been created
both at home and abroad as to the frequency of their oc-
currence. The number of divorce bills which have passed
during the last 10years is only 43, being on the averagelittle
more than four in each year. Last year there was only one;
and this return includes not only all cases in the United
Kingdom, but also in that large body of British-born sub-
jects who are engaged in the military and civil services in
India and the colonies. It can hardly be urged that so
small a number of cases affords grounds for an alteration of
the law, unless such alteration should appear in other re-
spects necessary or expedient.
The next question to be determined is whether divorces
vinculo have proved so generally beneficial to those who
have obtained them as to form a strong inducement to
afford facilities for an extension of the practice. That there
are cases in which happiness has been apparently secured
is not to be denied— in some to the wife, in others to the
husband, in a very few to both, and still more rarely to
their children. In more cases they have proved disastrous
in all respects;while in several, many of the evils attendant
on them have been avoided by one or both of the parties
contracting a second marriage, which renders the divorce,
so far as they are concerned, in fact necessary.
In considering, next, whether any advantages are likely
to arise from the entire abandonment of divorce a vinculo, I
would direct attention, in the first place, to the effect
which the denial of such divorces to the majority of the
people of this country has produced, and which I believe
will be generally admitted to have been, on the whole, bene-
ficial both to their morals and lhappiness. As bearing on
this point, 1 would also particularly refer to the effect pro-
duced by the refusal in almost everyinstance of application
for divorce on the part of the wife, in the same ranks of so-
ciety as those in which relief is obtained by the husband.
How often has forgiveness ensued in such cases, which
would have been impossible if a divorce had been obtained !
And though the injury received by the husband through the
infidelity of his wife is far greater, and harder to forgive, I
am satisfied that not unfrequently the bar which a divorce
has placed to a reconciliation in after years, has been the
cause of much misery, particularly in cases in which calmer
reflection may have suggested to the husband there were
faults on both sides.

A doubt may arise with some whether the withdrawal of
the heavy, and, so far as this world is concerned, perpetual
condemnation which accompanies such divorces, might not
take away from those who are trembling on the threshold of
guilt one great support and check against yielding to temp-
tation. Of such I would ask, whether they consider the
four or five Parliamentary divorces which are obtained in
each year, or the consequences which attend the crime, to
act as a prevention ? lam inclined to think that the ex-
pectation of a divorce sometimes increases the temptation.
If divorces d vinculo could be no longer obtained, divorces
menses et thoro, on the ground of adultery, would neces-
sarily be accompanied by the same exclusion from virtuous
society, which is now so justly enforced and so severely felt.
But they would not close the door to all hope of reconcilia•
tion. Let us remember, in determining this point, who He
was who said, "He that is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone ut her." Let us take example from Hin
who forgave the guilty one, when she stood alone before
Him, bidding her to " sin no more!' Let us remember
that with God forgiveness is always accompanied with re-
Foncliation, and humbly inquire within ourselves whether,
if we desire to prove ourselves worthy to be His followers,
we are justified in placing the bar of divorce between an
erring woman and all hope of reconciliation.
I have another objection to the proposed alteration, from
a conviction that it will extend much further than those who
recommend it in their report intend or consider expedient.
By the proposed change divorce a vinculo is no longer to
be considered an exceptional law, but is to be made a com-
mon legal remedy. Viewing the subject in this light, they
desire that such remedy should be limited by the rules
which at present govern the exceptional cases to which it
has been hitherto applied. To secure this, the provisions
of the act of Parliament by which the change is to be
effected ought to be clear and definite. No attempt has
been made to frame such a measure, and I believe that,
whenever it is attempted, the result will be unsatisfactory,
It appears to me, that any court to which the determina-
tion of such cases would be referred must be placed in a
totally different position from that in which Parliament
now stands in reference to these cases. The applicationat
present is to have an exceptional law passed, and the dis-
cretion, consequently, which can be exercised by Parlia-
ment is great. No judge can feel himself in the enj▪
oyment
of the same liberty in administering the existing law as he
may in recommending or refusing a special relief from its
provisions. I believe it will be generally admitted that a
divorce d mensil et thoro may be granted in cases in which
a divorce a vinculo ought to be refused. The practice of
any existing court, therefore, can only be imperfectly
adapted as a guide for this new tribunal ; and, unless a dis-
cretion similar to that now exercised by Parliament can be
transferred to it, which I believe every lawyer would feel
himself practically• debarred from exercising under the al-
tered circumstances, or unless words can be devised to ex-
press an enactment exactly that which the commi▪
ssioners
desire to secure, which I believe to be equally impossible,
divorces a vinculo will in future be granted in cases which
would now have no chance of success, and to which the
commissioners do not desire to extend it.

My apprehensions of evil consequences, however, extend
still further. I consider the tribunal recommended by the
commissioners for determining these questions a very good
ono ; but proceding before it in cases of divorced vinculo
will necessarily be attended with some expense, though far
below that which is required. These divorces will thus be
opened to another and numerous class, but a still more
numerous class will be equally excluded as at present.
Once create an appetite for such license by the proposed
change, and the demand to be permitted to satisfy it will
become irresistible. The cry for cheap law has of late
been universally attended to, and the result will too pro-