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

THE SCHOONER MARIA.

In answer to Mr. J. Looms,
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. PAKINOTON,
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 Indian
army le4ond that which was already referred to, and
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 state-
ments made on the Indian debate on Monday last, in
which Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Vernon Smith, Sir E. Cols-
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 Hon: severally presented peti-
tions against the bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Sir, in justification of the course
whieh was adopted last week when a considerable por-
tion of this house demanded further time for the consi-
deration of the marriage question, I c mid 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 the present advanced period of the session,
he replied, on the contrary, that he saw no reason 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 ctrtaiely
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 iu succession speaking against the bill—a
circumstance almost unparalleled, according to my re-
collection of the practice of the House of Commons. I
shall not speak of the ability of these speeches t 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 lest consummated
by the declitration of the Secretary of State, whoactually
complained that the division did not take place last
night, adding that there were symptoms of premeditation
connected with the prolongation of the debate. (Sir G.
GREY made an observation.) My right hon, 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,
1 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-
ticelly silent, in order that they might arrive at a divi-
sion. I do not lay a charge or blame upon any one, for
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.
meat, and I have not said what has escaped me to cast
blame on any one, but rather to ask justice for those who
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 bill 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 Seats such
a subject bas 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 sireitsd, 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, bas checked and prevented the preparation of
petitions. I have myself received letters stating that Go-
vernment appeared determined to press on this bill, and
that therefore the writer must forward his petition with
such signatures as he could hastily collect. One gentle-
man writes from Cornwall that if it were not for the
shortness of the time ho could get his petition signed by
3 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 w running, " until death d i
us pint," it should be, "until we two quarrel." The
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 conception 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 provisions of the bill. Very
true; but can there possibly be a better 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
ii 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 Parliament 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 nolele 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
T
that we may have something to show for our session.
he necessity of not presenting a blank list to the coun-
uthnadterwethhe
trY, is the reaeon why the bill is to be pressed forward
apveresent unfavourable circumstances. I say
in that mannenro lot to make character for this house
I subject, lest it should are not to hurry on an important
ewe said eut of doors that we were
I idle, and that in the aattiot: of the public we should
lose caste. Believe me 'till
afetetrrue and lasting eetima-
tion of our countrymen will,
depend, not on the
lie,asuareeidi through the
rapidity with which we hertz
hicil
house, but on the quality and
those measures when they have become law. durability °i
said that we cannot approach this bill without colintsiidteiB
ing the alternative, without considerii. g what has been
the practice of Parliament, which, as stated by
my
learned friend, has been in the habit Qi
hou, previousand

passing div' Jive bills without question. I do not dissem-
ble that thr et creates a real and serious difficulty in the
case, hut this I do say, that of three alternatives—one,
that of pat sing this bill ; another, the continuing to pa;-
private bi) Is as before until we can see our way better ;
and the th ird, that of stopping private acts altogether—
the alternative of passing this bill at this time is immea-
surably tht I most dangerous. I frankly own that I Heger
saw greater signs—and I mean to adduce some of those
signs—of the crude state of what may be called the par-
liamentary 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-
terest!, 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 measure now
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 have to
apply to the very incorrect statement of the Attorney-
General, that this fixed system 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 feelirg 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 law, 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 f3towell, 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
obligations. Thirdly, when the religions 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 set itself up as a ruler
over the consciences of men, and to absolve them from
the obligations of marriage which bad 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, bear) Having now described
the great effect of the bill, I shall proceed to exemine
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 f That no bill
of divorce shall be introduced in which there i 3 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.
and] learned friend says that divorce was the prin-
ciple of tke 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 I for that is the position on which the
promoters of the hill take their stand. If you look at the
report of the commission upon which this bill is founded,
yon will find that the sacramental chapter of marriage is
the point upon which their report turns. It is contended
that in Roman Catholic times marriage was held to be 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 cha acter. On the other hand, in the
Eastern 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 unknown to the law of England. He would merely
observe that that was the construction put upon the law
by that commission. His 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
Why, there could not be a grosser
o grant to his hon. and learned
fallacy.la
I f billbe ?
were t
friend that his bill was following out Parliamentary pro-
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 eve ! 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 ;
but 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 spoke, and under which he alleged
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 his hon. and learned friend's bill,
partly by its enactments and more by its principle, carry-
ing as it did divorce to all classes 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 be 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 wan not surprised that he had not in this re-
spect followed the exemple 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 (Hr. 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 (Hr. 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 bill in such a
form thatethey were not competent to deal satisfactorily
with the reasons for and against it. The patience of the
house could not allow time or oppertunity for such a
discussion, which was only suited for the closet of
divines, or a synod of theologians. Ho was, however,
compelled to touch upon it—unsatisfactorily as it neces-
sarily must be. His hon. and learned friend pointed
with great exultation to what he seemed to think funda-
darnental discrepancies between those who contended on
the authority of Scripture that rnieriage was not disso-
luble. In reference to the Greek word ropvfia, 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 Quar•
terly, put upon the won a different construction, c in-
stituting it to mean idolatry or apostacy. Now the writer
in the Quarterly did not give any interpretation. He
discussed various views given by others, without offer
ing any judgment in favour of the ore construction or
the other. But what he (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to po.lo
out was this—his hon. and learned friend quoted these
three several constructions, as if they bad been des.
tive of each other ; whereas, so far from 4'

being 0P-