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

Chancery and to establish a Court of Divorce." That
bill was read a second sime and committed, and was
abandoned in the middle of July, not because it was
too late to proceed wish it, but because the testamen-
tary jurisdiction could not be carried al ,og with it.
That bil was identical in its principles and in its most
important provisions with the bill now under discussion.
That bill proposed to establish a court of divorce, and
provided that certain facts being e,tablished, the court
should pronounce a divorce declaring the marriage to be
dissolved. That was precisely what was done by the
present bill. A- great deal had been said as to the intol-
erable hardship which would be placed on the clergy in
compelling them to marry divorced persons. Now, there
was no such clause in the bill, and the only bill at all
relating to the subject was copied from that introduced
by Lord Aberdeen's Government. He was afraid the
memory of his right hon. friend was not so good as his
imagination. At that time none of the scruples which
he now felt could have weighed upon the mind of his
right hon. friend, or he would not have consented to the
introduction of such a bill. His present convictions
could only be of recent date, for he was pursuing a
course diametrically opposite to that which be took
three years ago. Descending from the high theological
grounds which had been taken, he wished to consider
the bill with reference to the dictates of reason and the
requirements of human society. An attempt had been
made to attach an exaggerated importance to the mea-
sure, and some hon. members considered it a great in-
novation on the law of marriage and divorce, and that
divorces would be obte.ined in ca,es in which they were
not now granted. The noble lord the member for Leices-
tershire (Lord J. ?den ere) took a most exaggerated view
of the cao., threatening the country with all the evils
which had been introduced into France, and pointing out
the effect of the Prussian law of divorce, assuming that
the same results would fnlloW in this country, forgetting
that the law of divorce under the present bill would be
essentially different. His right bon. friend had im-
pugned the statement of his hor. and learned friend (the
Attorney-General), that the object of the bill was to give
a legirlative form to what hal been the practice of Par-
liament, and quoted a passage from the report of the
commissioners, stating that by the law of England the
compact of marriage was indiesoluble ; but he omitted
to quote the conclusion of the passage, which stated that
the actual dissolution of such contract, when adultery
was committed, was so consonant to reason and religion,
that where the general law had omitted to give a remedy
Parliament had given one by passing a particular law in
favour of those who made out their case. (Hear, hear.)
The commissioners stated, that from 1701 to the present
time the I:3islature had constituted itself into a court
for granting divorce i► vincula matrimonii. Lord Lough-
borough, whose regulations were referred to the other
. .

night,-no doubt laid down strict rules to bind persons

applying t o Parliament for a remedy ; but the Iloase of
Lords, acting judicially in laying down certain rules,
gave a direct sanction to such proceedings. (Hear.)
The noble lord (Lord J. Manners) observed that it was
quite true that two or three bills a year crept through
Parliament. Crept through Parliament I Why, they
had passed through Parliament with the concurrence
and assent of the noble I)rd, for he had made no objec-
tion to them. (Hear, hear.) Was not the noble lord
aware that in 1840, on the motion of the present Secre-
tary for the Colonies, the house, adopting the course
taken by the House of Lords, laid down certain rules
for regulating the proceedings with regard to divorce
bills, and, like the upper house, thus invited parties to
seek a remedy which the general law did not grant ?
(Hear.) But more than that. Not very long ago a
standing order was passed which required that at the
commencement of every session a divorce committee of
nine members should be appointed, and in pursuance of
that order the usual notice had appeared on the votes,
and the cornmitte had been regularly appointed session
by session for the purpose of granting proper facilities
for the passing of divorce bills and avoiding the
scandal arising from the repeated publication of details
which must be gone into by some court before a
divorce could be obtained. (Hear, hear.) At the pre-
sent moment there were at least four divorce bids
on the table; and if the noble lord had hitherto abstained
from opposing such bills because he did not know they
were "creeping" through the house, he now invited his
attention to those bills in order that he might oppose
them if he thought prop°r. Those who said " no" to the
present bill ought, if they wished to be consistent, to op
pose private bills which embodied the identical principle
to which they Low objected. Then, with regard to the
question whether the course which had been PO long fol-
lowed by Parliament did not amount to a judicial pro-
csedintr, and whether it had not constituted itself a court
—Sir J. Stoddart and Dr. Lushington, in their evidence,
etated that the course pursued by Parliament amounted
to a judicial proceeding, that Parliament had constituted
itself a court, by which, on certain fact 3 being proved, it
uniformly, as a matter of course and a matter of right,
granted relief to the suitors in the same manner as relief
was granted in other courts. But there was the anther; y
of the whole human race in opposition to the alleged in•
dissolubility of marriage, It had been said that in the
Roman Catholic Church marriage was indissoluble. Now
was that so? The Council of Trent might, perhaps, bold
marriage to ho indissoluble ; but the Roman Catholics
bad a convenient mode of dispensing with the doctrines of
that church. Thera wasa supreme authority, called a dis-
pensation—an admission that it was impossible tornain-
tain the doctrine unimpaired that marriage was indis-
soluble. The question was not whether there should he a
new law of divorce. The main principle of the bill was
not to alter the grounds or causes on which divorce was
grant'-d, but to alter the court before which the suit was
to be brought, and to allow a woman to sue for a divorce
on the ground of adultery and desertion. Toe effect of
the alteration in the law would be to give all parties an
equal and cheaper remedy than now existed. It had been
said that if this measure should pass there would be
10 divorces where there were now only ten. Now,
if there was anything in that argument, it only showed
that there were 90 persons out of 100 who were at
present unabls to obtain relief. (Hear.) Having stated
the general principle of the bill, he would just advert to
one of its details, that which alawed parties who were
divorced to marry again after divorce a vinculo had been
granted. He had seen some petitions against the bill as
regarded re-marriages. As the question had been stated
to the house by gentlemen who had spoken, it would
seem that the only desire of the clergy was to be freed
from the necessity of performing the marriage ceremony
over two persons, one of whom had been divorced under
this bill. They said the clergy objected to perform the
marriage ceremony of the church over persons whom
they termed the guilty parties. Now, that was not the
real lehj sction that was made. The objection was
founded on the indissolubility of marriage. They said
in effect that though an innocent husband had suffered
the greatest wrong that that could be inflicted on him by
his wife, yet being a married man they were not bound
to recognise the law of the land in performing the mars
riage ceremony when the innocent husband or his wife
was married. The right hon. member for Oxfordshire
shook his head and dissented from that view, but there
was an able exoz,neut elsewhere on this subject, and be
had obtained from the j lurnals of the House of Lords the
identical motion submitted to them embodying the views
of the clergy on this subject, and which was reje ,ted by
a niej nity of 78 to 25. The clause was as foil ows
Provided, nevertheless, that no clergyman in holy
orders in the Church of Eagland shall, after the passing
of this act, he liable to any censure in any court ecclesi-
astical or civil, for refusing to perform the marriage ser-
vice over any person or persons who, after being mar-
ried and divorced, shall seek to be married again during
the lifetime of the husband or wife from whim they
have been divorced under this act." Why it was clear
that that placed the innocent husband or wife under
the ban of the church. He only wished to pot this
matter in its true light. The question would have to
be discussed when they got into committee, but he
trusted they would not have to decide it, but that the
parties who took that view of the case would find
that their ground was untenable and that they would not
present to the house so•extreme a demand as that which
was submitted elsewhere. But let him say this bill im-
posed no new obligation whatever. Iu all the cases in
which there had been a divorce that obligation of the
clergy had existed to the fullest extent as it would exist
after this bill was passed. It would be more open to
parties to obtain divorces, and therefore there would he
probably more persons who, having been divorced and
wishing to contract a second marriage, would present
themselves to have the ceremony performed. It was
only a question of degree, and not of principle. Any one
of these four persons who bad their divorce bills now be-
fore Parliament, every one of which bills he had no doubt
would become law in a few days, might present himself,
with another person with whom he wished to contract
marriage, to the parish clergyman, who would be obliged
not by this bill, but by the law as it at present stood, to
perform the ceremony. He did not wish to say more. He
had only wished to bring back the house to the region of
corn non sense, and to show that the law which had been
assumed to be the Divine law of marriage and divorce,
was a mere fiction of the imagination. He hoped that
the house and the country would be disabused of those
misconceptiong with regard to this bill, which had been
so industriously circulated, and that the house would
assent to the second reading of this bill. (Hear.)
Lord LOVAINE defended the practice of the church,
as contradistinguished from the principles laid down in
the present bill. This bill extended the power of getting
a divorce only to a tow, and the measure as far as it went
of a popular measure was totally inefficient and absurd.
fle believed that this bit would never be acceptable to
any one who had any respect for the feelings of those
who went against the practices of the aduLerer and the
adulteress.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL entirely agreed with
Mr. Gladstone that the discussion of the religious part
of the question was scarctly fit for an arena like that,
and that it was more fit for the closet of the divine, or
the library of the scholar. But the question had been
discussed elsewhere, they had the opinion of the heads of
the church on the suljsct, and there was undoubtedly
the weight of authority that the marriage tie was disso-
luble ; and the right hon. gentleman was obliged to al-
' low that even in the early ages of the church this doctrine
was held. But undoubtedly that doctrine at the present
day was held by at least a great portion of the church.
Any gentleman. who wished far it might anJ much
valuable information in the report of the committee, and
the! committee recommended the adoption of the measure
now under the consideration of the house. But assuming
that they satisfied theineelve3 that there was nothing
cmtrary to religion in the course they proposed, then
came the practical question with reference to the effect
of the mewure on the social condition of the people,
and certainly he was rather surprised at the noble
lord the member for Leicestershire, who last night
descanted in terms of much indignation at the idea of
would
4 1. introducing a change which, according to him
produce almost universal immorality. He spoke
the measure would dissolve the framework of society ;
and he based his opinion on the result of the facilitating
of divorces in Germany by the law of that c,untry. The
noble lord referred to the speech of -.Baron Gerlach,
Ehowiug the frequency of divorce in Pt u4aia ; but he did

not say that in Prussia divorce was allowed fora grea
number of causes, while by this bill the right of divorce
was confined to cases of adultery. They had, however,
an illustration nearer home, much more apposite—that
of Scotland, where the law of divorce went much farther
than was proposed by this bill, although stopping short
of that ( f Prussia. In Scotland, divorce was allowed in
cases of adultery or continuous desertion ; and it did not
appear that this facility produced those frightful conse-
quences which were apprehended by the opponents of
the bill ; nor were all the people. running after divorcee.
It appeared that in five years there were only 95 cases.
'although the expense was only between 20/. and 301.;
and he had yet to learn that the people were more immo-
ral than those of this country. Looking at the matter
in a practical point of view, the question for the house
was whether the present state was desirable or not--
whether they were prepared to stay where they were, to
retrograde, or to go forward. They who contended that
marriage was indissoluble could not consent to a legi-
lative divorce ; for if to grant it at all was contrary to the
Divine law, they would never consent to pass a divorce
bill. Would they go beck, and abolish divorce altoge-
ther, or retain the present law, which gave a remedy to
the rich, but not to the poor It was objected that the
new court would be very expensive, that it would lead
to all sorts of collusion, and that dissolutions of mar-
riage would be very frequent. It was true the bill did not
go as far or bring divorce as 1)w- as it might ; what it did
accomplish was to substitute a judicial legal tribunal for
an a:otnal ms extraordinary ltgislatoee one. As it stood
the bill went sufficiently far, for it was easier to extend
the provisions of such a measure than to abridge them. 11°
csuld not coincide in tee extravagant ideas of the expense
entertained by some members, but believed the bill would
afford a much more extensive remedy than the present
at an expense not too great. If that were so, what wea
the real objection to the second reading ? As it was
said, this was a coercive measure ; but as the Home
Secretary had remarked, it made no change in the law
with regard to the clergy, but left them in exactly the
same position as they were at present. The clergy bad
no more right to complain of this bill than of the system
which had existed for the last one hundred and fifty
years. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him
that the bill (supposing always a person had satisfied
himself there was no violation of religion in its adoption)
was one for which they had sufficient grounds if legisla'
tion was desirable ; and legislation was desirable, for the
present state of things couln not and ought to exist.
Mr. HENLEY thought that Sir G. Grey bad given
all the principal arguments that had been advanced the
"go by," whereas be had added nothing to the real ar-
guments, which had been fully borne out by the repre-
sentations of so many of the clergy that marriage was
indissoluble, and he held therefore that their view of the
case ought at all events to be respected. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman then directed his attention- to
this question' whether, if marriage were indisia luble, it
was prudent to apply that principle to all classes of the
community (liesr, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE, as one of the commissioners, upon
whose report the bill had been founded, expressed hie
intention of giving it his support. Any person unacs
quaiuted with the laws or history of the country, that
had heard the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr'
Glsdatene), would have thought that Parliament was
about to introduce a bill to unsettle all the sanctities of
the marriage tie, and to lower the position of wows°,
below her present elevated standard, whereas the real
truth was that divorce was not to be granted upon any
ground except that for which it was now accorded, and
that this was proposed to be done by one good court of
law, instead of the three courts which were at preseet,
entrusted with the grant of divorces. The course °I
divorce ft vinculo as prop sed by the bill was exactly
the same as that of the present law, and would 11
granted for nothing else than for adultery on the parto
the wife, and the part of the husband in certain ease?.
Substantially there was not the slightest atom of dig
ference between the causes of divorce, or the results
which were to fl)w from such divorces, between tb°
bill and the law as it at present stood. Mere was
nettling, therefore, in the proposal which wouldiaia
lead to such opinions as had been expressed respectieg
the widespread demoralisation and profligacy which It
was said would be sanctioned and fostered by the meat
sure.

Mr. NAPIER had come to the conclusion that
adultery woe, according to Scriptures a ground for the
dissolubility of marriage. His opposition, however, to
this bill was upon the point of remarriage.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL briefly replied to the
arguments of previous speakers. The hon. member for
Surrey had, he said, drawn his arguments from the Old
Testament, and had challenged him (the Attorney-Gene'
ral) to produce a case of intermarriage subsequent to
adultery in any of the books from Genesis to Malachi'
He thought he could find one in which adultery followed
by murder resulted in intermarriage. (Hear.) But as th°
speech of his rfght hoe. friend the member for Cozier('
University had; like Aaron's rod, swallowed up all the
rest, he should content himself with following very
briefly his right hon. friend's arguments. His rightholl.
friend had transcended himself on the prosent occasioet
and yet he must vote for this bill unless he wished to
stultify all his own recorded acts and opinions when A
cabinet minister in 1853 and 1854. The present bill Wee
the same as that which had received the approbation of
the cabinet in 1854, and which when he (the Attorney'
b
General) attempted to bring in again in 1855, the
hon. gentleman said was an attempt to make politics,
capital, and should not have been tried, except with
certainty of success. But what had his right hon. friend
produced on the present occasion, as his crowning ergo'
went against the bill ? A 'book written by an obscure
proctor, in an ecclesiastical court in Ireland. (gr'
Gladstone : No, no,) Why, it was published in Dublin,
and was no doubt the work of some Roman Catholic
proctor. (Laugh ter. )
Mr. GLAIHTONE—The editition from which
quoted was published in Dublin, but it was printed I°
years after the original puhlication.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—WeII, we would take
it as having been written and published in London, a°
as being worthy of all the commendations of his right
hon. friend. But, what were his facts, which had CO';
verted the Cabinet Minister of 1854 into the eloquent
denouncer of his own bill in 1856 ?
"Who would not laugh, if such a man there be;
Who would not weep"—
But he would not finish the quotation. (Laughter:„)
Having replied to Mr. Gladstone's argument as to
the law of divorce not being in agreement
the opinions of the early reformers, the Attorney'
General proceeded to say that this bill contemplated e
remedy for adultery when coupled with desertion'
But he beLeved the house had heard quite enoug,ll„
of the subject. (Loud and general cries of " Hear, hear. /
He called upon the house to say whether they would OW
declare that marriage should henceforth be indissoluble'
or whether they would proceed upon the principle
they had acted upon for so many years, and extend it to
All classes.

The house then divided—
For the second reading 2Ol
Against it
Majority in favour of the bill
ILLICIT DISTILLATION (IRELAND) BILL.
The bill passed through committee.
NEW WRIT.
On the motion of Mr. lIIYTER a new writ wag
ordered for the Falkirk Burghs, in the room of SSG
Merry, whose elec'ion had been declared void.

THE NEWS FROM INDIA.
Mr. SPOONER—I wish to ask the noble lord if be
will inform the house whether he has received so'
despatches from India ?

Lord PALMERSTON—The despatches have genet°
the Lidia-house, so we cannot receive them ; but rait
right !awl. friend the President of the BJard of Control
bas as some private letters from Calcutta, Bombay, and
Madras. Toe substaace of them was given is the ttle'
graphic despatches which have been received ; no event
of any importance had taken place different to those air
flounced in the tel.fzraphic despatches.
Sir. T. O'BRIEN_MayI ask whether Delhi 0
taken

Lord PALMERSTON—At the receipt of the last
telegraph Delhi bad not been taken.
The house adjourned at five minutes past two.

LONGEVITY AT FOLKESTONE.—A Miss Ann Cook 10
just died. at Folkestone, at the advanced age of 104yearso
having lived under five crownel heads.

[ADVERTISEMENT].—HoIIoway's Pills the most power
ful Antidote to Dieease Extant.—Toseph Quinnell, of
Woolbeding, Midhurst, Sussi.x, expresses his deep gra-
titude to Professor Holloway br the benefit be bagderived from the use of his remedies, having suffered
for two years from extreme debility and indigestion;
caused by a severe cold, disabling. lain from work ; be
was for some time an inmate of Brighton Hospital and
Chichester Infirmary, but to little purpose ; he then
tried Holloway's Pil's, and in a short time they had the
effect of restoring and invigorating the entire system.--
Sold by all medicine venders throughout the world ; nt
Professor Holloway's E,tabliihments, 244, Strand,
London, and 80, :Maiden-lane, New York ; by A. Stamps,
Constantinople ; A. Gaiditry, Smyrna ; and E. Muir,
Malta.

BIRTHS.
OF A SONS

On the 30t•h ult., at Cleveland-square, Hyde-park, the
wife of Edmund A. Pontifex, Esq.
On the 30th nit., at Leytonstone-house, Essex,lhe wife
of T. Fowell Buxton, Esq.
OF A Denetrruu.
On the 31st ult , at Thurloe-cottage, Barrington-road,
Brixton, the wife of Mr. F. W. Moore.
Oa the 30th ult., at Dappas-hill, Croydon, the wife of
Mr. Henry Chasemore.

MARRIED.
Oa the 30th ult,, at All Soul's Church, St. Blatylebone.
Major W. Henry Larkin, 2d Bengal Grenadiers N.J., to
Louisa, the third daughter of Dr. Southey, of 10, Harley.
street.

D 'ED.
At the residence of his eldest eon, at Hellesdon, near
Norwich, on the 29th ult., William Frederick Augustus
Delano, Esq., of 10, Eaton-place south, London, Treasurer
of the County Courts of Kent, &0., aged 64. He died
surrounded by his family, by whom he was very tenderly

On the 281 h ult., in London, the celebrated Blind Tra.
yeller, Lieut. James Holman, R.N., F.S.A., &c.
Ori the 30th ult., at 30, Western Villas, Blomfield-road►
Paddington, Samuel Jacob Simmonds, of 48, Fenchuroh•
street, aged 51.
On the 31st ult., Margaret Mary, only surviving dauglr
ter of Sir WM. J. Newton, of 6, Argyll-street, aged 32.
On the 30th ult., at 12, Mount-row, Berkeley-squareo
Mr. George Hutchinson, aged 65.

- - -
LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG'
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 271 s Sun Office, 14°4
112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the ennui/
of 2lidthuta, Saturday, August 1,18 g.