The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-25 00:00:00

mature deliberation and discussion in reference to its
principle as well as its details. But they had all these
important matters. affecting the relations of society, the
religious feelings of the people, and the criminal and cc-
cl,4iastical kiriTrudence of the country jumbled togs-
th( r in one and that brought in on the 21th ,f July.
Ile seas quite convinced that all the days remaining of
the present session would be insufficient to discuss the
details in committee, if they do not wish to legislate
rashly and dangerously. He urged upon the Govern-
ment to withdraw the bill, and reintroduce it early next
session. (Hear, hear.) For himself, he obj-cted to the
principle of the bill, which he believed to be mischievous
and fraught with evil. Before deciding such a question,
in whit i the divine law was involved, they ought to
assemble the church and consult it on the matter: He
thought, in not doing so, they were treating their church
(to which he.did not belong) very badly. (Hear, hear.)
If they consulted the clergy they would, he believed, see
reason to doubt whether they were competent to pass
such a measure.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the speeches
which had followed Mr. Henley showed the propriety of
proceeding to the discussion of the bill. There was but
one great principle to be discussed in the bill—the great
and important question of the dissolubility of marriage
in thin country as a part of the law of the land. (Flear.)
Whether that was part of the law of the land, or might
be part of the law of the land was the great question to
be discussed. That the present state of things was
most unsatisfactory no one could doubt. He believed,
notwithstanding what was stated in that debate, that
the opinion of the country was in favour of legislation
on the subject. If evil,: existed in an aggravated shape,
surely a bill which was calculated to meet them should
be promptly dealt with. He objected to the course
adopted by his right hon. friend, in interrupting the
Attorney-General when he was about to state the ca,e
in favour of the bill ; and his right hon. friend had not
only interrupted that exclamation, hut with the skill of
a practised member of parliament, he had contrived to
send out to the country notions and ideas with regard
to the bill which were calculated to enlist an influential
class in the country aga net the bill. He admired the
skill of his right hen. friend—and he was well followed
up by the right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Oxford, especially as regarded the point
that the existence of local courts was threatened ; and if
that notion got abroad, there would be enlisted against
the measure the influence of all those who were in-
terested in those local juriseiitions. He thought that
was not a fair way of meeting the bill, especially at its
present stage. But he (the Solicitor-General) would
assert that there was no foundation fur the statement.
What was the ground of that statement by his right
hon. friend. He said that in three years there
were 101 matrimonial suits, and of these 48 had
been decided in the local courts. But where they
were heard, how they were distributed, who were
the parties to them, and whether they were °of the
lower orders who it was supposed were to be deprived
of the benefit of these courts by the bill, they did
not know. But it was said that such was the fluc-
tuating state of the mind of the House of Lords with
regard to this measure, that it came to that house
without the weight which entitled it to consideration.
Now with all his partialities for the House of Commons,
he could not agree with the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone), who had made so light of the discussions of
House of Lords on this measure—those repeated discus-
sions following up the reports of commissions. The
right honourable gentleman said that this question had
net engaged_ the attention of the country, but he (the
Solicitor-General) would say that it had engaged the
attention of the c entry for years, and the discussions
upon it in the Ilou,e of Lords, supported as they were
by great lawyers, assisted by bishops on all ecclesiastical
questions—these elaborate and repeated discussions
in the House of Lords were not to be so lighuly treated.
He trusted the House would not agree in the statement
of his right hon. friend, that the mind of the House of
Lords was not settled on this question. If the objec-
tion that there was no time this session to discuss the
details of the bill was to be taken, it ought to have been
taken after the principle was affirmed by the second
reading ; and the motion of his right hon. friend was at
least premature. Eveu the points of detail which
would require discussion would resolve themselves into
a very few, and even the skill of his right hon. friend
would not be able to extend them to more than six or
seven. He trusted the house would say that it was
right that the Attorney-General should be allowed to
lay the bill before the house, and then the hon. and
learned member for Dundalk might take the sense of
the house on its principle.
Lord J. MANNERS said that the Solicitor-General
and the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Gre)) had made
a matter of accusation against his right hon, friend,
that he rose at the moment of which he had given
notice in order to meke his motion, and that it was not
right in him to have interrupted the statement of the At-
torney-General. But those hon. members had overlooked
the fact, that it was the avowed intention of his right
hon. friend to prevent the Attorney General from enter-
ing into his explanation of the bill. The hon. and
learned gentleman said that there was only one great
principle involved in the bill ; and admitting for the sake
of argument that that was so, yet they who thliught with
him (Lord J. Manners) said that that principle was so
great and important, was so deeply and so nearly inter-
woven with the feelings of the people of this country,
that they could not allow it to be discussed at the fag-end
of an exhausted session. The hen. and learned gentle-
man denied that there was any feeling in the country
against the bill, but that if there was any feeling, it was
rather in favour of it ; but he would cha'lenge the hon.
and learned gentleman to support his assertion by any
one petition which bad been presented to either house of
Parliament. He (Lord J, Manners) had that afternoon
looked over the list of petitions, and he could not find
one in favour of the bill—(hear, hear)—while numerous
petitions emanating from those who were best entitled
to the respectful attention of the house from their station,
their ability, and their virtue, had not only been pre-
sented, but continued to be presented in increasing num-
bers every day. The hon. and learned gentleman had sal I
that his right hon. friend stated that it was impossible
to discuss the bill in such a manner as to pass it. His
right hon. friend did not say that the government, which
was said to possess the most absolute majority in that
house since the time of Pitt, could not force this or any
other measure down the throats of the house ; but
his right hon. friend said that it was impossible, morally
and physically, that the measure could be discussed
with the care and attention to which it was entitled.
The hon. and learned gentleman said that no informa-
tion had been afforded by his Tight hon. friend with regad
to the local courts to which he had alluded ; but whose i
fault was- that, unless it was the fault of the Govern-
ment, whose dety it was to be furnished with every
in-
formation on the subject; but it so happened that, in the
report of the commission, it would be found that the cir-
cumstances connected with every one of the 48 cases
alluded to were stated. It appears that even the law
advisers of the Crown were not prepared, on the 24th of
July, fully to discuss this measure which they wished
the house to pass. If the Solicitor-General was deficient
in information on the subject, it was surely open to
members of that house to say that they would not con-
sent to be dragged at the end of the session into a die-
cuesion on the most solemn subj -ct which could occupy
the attention of a Christian Legislature. Those who
thought with him said, take back your bill, and re-intro-
duce it in another session ; wo do not wish to prejudice
it by discussing its principle, but we will not in this way
be forced, in the last moments of the session, into the
consideration of a measure which the other house had
had ample time to consider, and the progress of which
showed in the most unmistakeable manner that they en-
tertained no settled opinion with regard to it. He said ,

take back the bill, and if they did not, they (the opposi-
tion) would assert their claim (and he believed they had
the power to make good that claim) not to be called on,
without due deliberation, to unsettle the law of Church
and State, and the law of marriage, by a measure which
was in direct opposition to the r. vealed word of Gad.
Lord STANLEY said that it was somewhat curious

that those hon. members who asked the house for more
time for deliberation with reference to this measure,
were precisely those who implied that, as far as they
themselves were concerned, all deliberation was super-
flous. (Hear.) He could understand the opposi-
tion of those who said that they. had not made up their
minds on the principle of this bill, and required time for
further deliberation ; but he could not understand

those who said that their minds were made up, and that
they intended to oppose the bill in every stage, urging
that they bad a right for further time for deliberation.
They were told that they were now at the end of the
session ; he wished that it could be said that they were
—(hear)--but looking to the state of the business before
the house and up stairs, he thought it would he found
that they bad sufficient to occupy them yet for several
weeks. Several committees which had been sitting on
subjects of great importance had not yet made their re-
ports.; several others bad not yet completed the evidence
before them, while there were still a number of election
petitions to be tried, and which it we- not desirable to
postpone to another year. However anxious they all
might be to shorten the duration of the session, yet
their duty to the public ought to induce them to recol-
lect that there bad been an interruption by two:months of
the ordinary business of the year. Then was it or was
it not a fact, that this measure had not been before the
public for a sufficient time to enable them to form an
opinion on it ? He could say nothing of the reports of
commissions and committees, for though the subject had
been much discussed by these bodies, the result of their
discussions might not have passed into the hands of the
public. But a bill similar to this had been introduced
last year, which had been very fully discussed, and the
measure had received a full discussion in the present
year, and had been amply considered by the highest
authorities in the law and the church, and whatever
might be the.ingenuity or skill of debate, he thought it
would be difficult for any one to offer any suggestion
which had not been considered in another place. The
main ressen, however, which he would press on her
Majesty's Government for persevering with this measure
was, that it was one rather of principle than of detail.
That which lay at the bottom of the opposition to this
measure was a fundamental difference among members of
that hou,e and the public with regard to the theory and the
subject of the measure, which declared that one broad prin-
ciple was in issue, and that was whether by the law of the
land marriage should be dissolved in any case or not.
That was the broad and general principle, and it was
one on which a majority of the house had already formed
an opinion, and it was not likely that that opinion could
be much changed by any debates on the question. It was
neither customary or convenient to go into a detailed
discussion of the principles of a bill which was not be.
fore the house, but as the subject had been alluded to, be
would say one word with regard to the opinion enter-
tained by the public on this question. It was stated that
a number of petitions had been presented, chiefly by the
clergy, in opposition to the measure, and on referring to
them, he found that the great mass of them turned net
so much on the general principle as on one clause of the
bill, which imposed a particular duty on the clergy of