The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-20 00:00:00

mons had accepted the evidence as given at their lord-
ships' house, but he knew several cases where the Corn•
mons required evidence of their own, this being the
fourth time when the same evidence was -required, to the
great detriment of public morality. Ail the commission-
ers, with one exception, agreed that there ought to be a
tribunal established to examine the evidence and pro-
nounce a decree. He believed that the apprehensions of
his noble and learned friend would be found to be ground-
less. ' His noble friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had argued
that wo should put the two sexes on an entire equality.
This might be for the committee to consider. Bat that
wisest of all codes, the civil code, only allowed a divorce
on the part of the woman when the husband brought a
woman into his own house. He would or ly allow a
divorce where it was impossible for the two persons to
live together, which was only in the case of the adultery
of the wife. If the adultery of the husband was accom-
panied by aggravation, so as to prevent the continuance
of the marriage, then the contract should be at an end.
So far he would go with his noble and learned Mend,
and no farther. As it was understood that the bill was
to be read a second time, all further discussion was un-
necessary at present. Otherwise be should have first
treated the arguments of his right reverend friend (the
Bishop of Oxford), and endeavoured to answer them.
But it was the understanding that no opposition should
be offered to the second reading of the Bill. Before
going into committee, he wished to know how the bill
applied to Ireland ?

The Marquis of WESTMEA.TH—I was going to
mention that.

Lord CAMPBELL—If an Irishman bad an unfaith-
ful wife he still would have to petition the House of
Lords. There should be a civil tribunal established in
Ireland or some means provided for giving the same fa-
cilities in that country as in this. With regard to the
action for criminal conversation, he regretted that his
noble and lesrned friend did not with one bl )w put an
end to that system. He was ashamed of it. He had
been taunted with it, when he had been obliged to cen•
fess to foreigners that such was the law of the country-
There were many who would be entirely deprived of the
advantages of this bill. The noble duke had instanced
the Roman Catholics. They could not obtain a dissolu-
tion of their marriage, and they could have no redress
under the provisions of this bill.

Viscount DUNGANNON would divide the house
against the bill even if he stood alone. Was not the re-
medy worse than the disease t All discussion showed
this. How fearful a source of evil would this bill be to
Coe lower orders—in disrupting the only :tie that too
many of them held sacred. The difficulty of divorce was
a blessing to society. People settled down into harmony
arid wedded comfort, who otherwise might' have flown
off in a tangent to some of these tribunals to divorce
them for a guinea. It might appear presumptuous in so
young a peer, but he should make bold to move that the
bill be read that day six months.
Lord REDESDA.LE thought that the authority of
Scripture was rather in favour of the indissolubility of
marriage. The feeling of the country and the law were
both against divorce. There were only two divorces on
an average granted annually. Was it better to extend
this principle or take it away altogether, and so make
marriages even more holy and irrefragable E The expe-
riment now proposed was certainly a dangerous one.
The Bishop of SA.LISBUBY advocated the total abo-
ition of the divorce a vinculo. Its extension to the poorer
classes. itstead of a blessing would •be a curse. There
was no authority in the New Testament for a separation
such as would allow remarriage. It this bill was passed
the clergy who could not recognise the dissolubility of
marriage would have great difficulty to reconcile the law
of God with the law of man, their loyalty to their Queen
with their loyalty to th'e Supreme.
The Bishops of Bangor, Llandaff, and Durham, took
the same side.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH hoped the bill would
be extended to Ireland.

The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill ; first be-
cau-e there was no scriptural warrant for remarriage ;
and, secondly, because the bill was generally ill consi-
dered. Hue lordship complained that the term " quib-
bling" had been app.;ied to the arguments of himself and
his right rev. colleagues. He disagreed with Lord
Lyndhurst's interpretation of St. Augustine in remar-
riages, which the Christian law did not sanction.
Lcri LYNDIIURST explained.

The Bishop of OXFORD did not deny the authority
for divorce, but such divorce was only a mensh et thoro
—not such as to qualify for remarriage. The l,w of mar-
riage as at present existing was disgraceful, but the pre-
sent law went to make it worse. This bill would be a
deceit on the country. It pretended to give equal rights
to the poor with the rich, but did nothing of the kind.
Like all laws, now passing and lately passed, it made the
procedure so expensive as to amount to a denial of jus-
tice. Toe rich could pay—the poor could not ; the rich
would be divorced—the poor would remain in vice, dis-
cord, and adultery, as before. To get divorce, then, to
the poor—nay, to tha middle classes—they must bring
it down to the county courts. A divorce for half-a-
crown I Were their lordships prepared to come to that ?
The machinery of the present bill might be expensive,
but its principle was declaratory, and such being the
case, the practice, sooner or later, must be adapted, to
the more efficacious carrying out of this principle. The
bill wou!d lead to perpetual conflict of jurisdiction be-
tween the civil and ece'esiastical courts.

The lliihop of LONDON gave his hearty approval to
the principle of the bill. (Hear.) The right rev, prelate
argued at some length, that there was no precept of
Christianity which could be used as an argument in fa-
vour of the perfect indisQolubility of marriage under every
circumstance, and he contended that there might be acts
of such a character as would be sufficient to render mar-
riage dissoluble. He denied, too, that the law of the
Church or of the State recognised the perfect indissolubi-
lity of marriage. The private bills• which were passed
every year dissolving marriages, and the Church which
remarried the parties after their separation, proved that
such was not the principle of either State or Church. If
these divorces were to be granted, it would be much bet-
ter that they should be pronounced by such a court as
that proposed to be instituted rather than by the present
exceptional and partial system. He thought it was not
right that we sbou!d any longer keep up the rid system,
but should lose no time in setting the matter on a broad
and int, bigible (Cheers.)

The Duke of A rtGyLL contended that the passage
in St. Matthew fully recognised the right of a man to
f.ut away his wife, not merely as a monsa et thorn, but
a vinculi, and said that his right rev. friend the Bishop
of Oxford must give up the theolog:cal part of his argu-
men% With re.pect to the objection of the right rev, pre-
late that the bill would create a remedy only for the rich
and not for the poor, there was no reason whatever to
suppose that an equal amouni; of relief would be afforded
by the bill to the classes of England, as was the cue in
Scotland.

The Bishop of LINCOLN said the only point of diffe-
rence between the members of the episcopal bench was,
whether the woman after being divorced should be in a
position to contract a second marriage. Conceiving that
the permission to contract a second marriage by the di-
vorced woman would lead to great social and moral evils,
he should feel it his duty to opp.)se the second reading.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question
that the word "now" stand part of the bill.
The house divided, when there appeared—
• Content 47
Non content lB
Majority for the second reading —29
The house then adjourned at ten minntes past ten.

It is worthy of notice that, fur the first time in the an-
nals of the House of Lords, strangers were not ordered
to withdraw during the division. The old system was
the cause of great inconven'.enca without the slightest
advantage to balance it, and the reporters more espe-
cially have to thank those, whoever they are, through
whom this ray of troublesome etiquette has been thrown
away.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTpDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before 4 o'clock.

NEW ME VIBEP,S.

The following members took the oaths and their seats:
—Lord C. Hamilton, Sir H. F. Davie, Mr. W. Jack.
son, Mr. Crook, Col. Clifford, Sir J. Owen, and Mr.
Blake.