The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-24 00:00:00

EXPLORA TION OF CENTRAL AUSTRALIA.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE begged to put a ques-
tion to the President of the Council, as the Colonial
Department was not represented in the house. When
he (the Duke of Newcastle) held the office of Colonial
Secretary, an expedition was organised and placed
under the direction of Mr. Gregory for the exploration
of Central Australia. He had been given to under-
stand that the expedition had been eminently
successful. The question he wished to ask was
whether any report bad been received from Mr. Gregory
•ato the results of the expedition ; and whether, if any
such had been received, there would be any objection
SO lay it on the table of the house l
Earl GRANVILLE said it was quite true that great
Success had attended the efforts of the expedition. From
a report which bad been received from the Governor,
it appeared that a vast tract of fertile land had
been discovered, and that under the skill and care of Mr.
Gregory the whole of the parties who formed the expedi-
tion had returned safely. The nobleduke might rest assured
that the 'information the Government received with re-
spect to the exploration should be communicated to their
lordships.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT
BILL.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved the se
cond reading of this bill.
The bill was accordingly read a second time.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third read-
ing of this bill.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested that the bill should
be read a third time pro forma, for the purpose of allow-
ing a noble lord an opportunity of moving an amend-
ment.
The bill was then read a third time pro forma.
Lord REDESDALE then rose and moved the omis-
sion of certain words from one of the clauses of the
bill, for the purpose of raising the whole question with
respect to the propriety of granting divorces a vinculo
matrimonii. Many persons who differed from him with
respect to the indissolubility of the marriage vow were
opposed to the bill, and were extremely anxious that,
before the subject was finally settled by the passing of
this measure, the subject should be further discussed.
Lord CAMPBELL objected to the amendment of the
noble lord. The bill as it at present stood would intro-
duce a great improvement in the law.
The Earl of MALMESBURY supported theamend-
ment. He regretted that last year he assented to the
third reading of the bill ' but that circumstance was
entirely owing to his not having given the bill sufficient
consideration. Every word he heard only convinced
him that the subject was surrounded with great difficulties,
and if the present bill was passed the great confusion
and mischief would arise.
The Earl of WICKLOW supported the bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he rose to address their
lordships with a sincere respect for the scruples expressed
by•theirdordships, and with a sincere view of relieving
them.. He believed the entirety of the law was violated
and set at nought as often as the judge was appealed to
to dissolve it. He did not mean tolay that a man could
have a dissolution whenever he liked to apply for it with-
out se case ; but as soon as certain conditions were ful-
filled, and a case proved, the marriage was dissolved
without any question whatever being raised about it. If
their lordships had attended as often as he had in such
cases, they would see how much deliberation there was.
The Chancellor roee and put the question, and thereupon
judgment was ordered just as it followed the verdict of a
jury in a common law court in Westminster-hall. The
noble earls (Wicklow and Malmesbury) had argued the
question with their usual ability and sincerity ; but he
would just beg to put it to them how much dignity there
• was in the course they proposed to pursue. There was a
standing order in connection with their lordships' house
not only thatno divorce bill should pass except under
special conditions, but that no divorce bill might even ap-
pearin- the house unless under certain preliminaries, and
that was, that it should contain a clause prohibiting the
marriage of the adulterer, but that clause was struck out
in committee, making the standing order altogether
valueless. Now, the only question was, whether it
would not be better that it should be a substance and a
reality, and that divorce should become simply a judicial
act. (Hear.) It had been said that such cases coming
before the common law courts, they would not excite any
attention, but he believed that divorce cases would se-
cure more attention than any that could by any possi-
bility be brought before the courts. Again, the import-
ance of the cause to the person applying, or the person
resisting, would ensure the fullest investigation, which '
neither professional gentlemen nor judges, if so disposed,
could for a moment prevent. There must be the proof
of the act, the proof of the terms on which the parties
lived, and all other proofs which were now the pivots
upon which such cases invariably turned. (Hear.) If
as yet justice was refused to any on account of expense,
delay, and vexation, they would no doubt resort to a new
tribunal ; and was that an evil t On the contrary, it was
one of his great reasons for supporting the bill. He
could not, on inquiring into this subject, help
citing the case of Scotland—for nowhere was there
a greater respect for the Scriptures on the part of
the people and their ministers, and yet time out of
mind they had held marriage to be dissoluble in the
decision of the courts. (Hear.) He did not cite that
case as a proof that the Scotch people were right and that the noble earls were wrong, but merely to show what I
was the opinion of that most religious people on the sub-
ject of the dissolubility of marriage. (Hear, hear.) He
had no apprehension that this making the law more
equal as between rich and poor would at all have the
effect of increasing the number of applications for di-
vorce. Nor did he believe that the result of the passing
of the bill would be appeals on the part of the people
that the legislature should go further in the granting of '
divorces. If any unreasonable proposition of this sort
were ever made, it would be very easy to resist it.
(Hear, hear.) But there was one point on which he
trusted there would be no doubt, and that was with re-
gard to the penalties to be inflicted upon the offender in
such cases. He (Lord Brougham) was in favour of
making it a misdemeanour, in addition to to the pecu-
niary penalty. He bad had many communications from
persons in judicial office pressing these considerations '
upon him. When it was a mere matter of feeling, of
course pecuniary compensation was but-of secondary
consideration; bnt then it must be remembered that in
other cases a man lost pecuniarily by the deprivation of
his wife's services in the supervision of his family, and in
such cases, therefore, he thought pecuniary compensation
should be secured. He was far from desirous of com-
ing into collision with the other house, for he was of
opinion that harmony should always subsist between
the two branches of the legislature.
Lord WENSLEYDALE said there never had been
any doubt about the law, the only difficulty having been
about the practice which had sprung up during the last
200 years. He had had considerable doubts about the
principle of the bill, but as it had passed twice before,
and had been recommended by a commission, he was not
disposed to offer any objections to it.
The Earl of CARNARVON said the bill had under-
gone so many metamorphoses that it was very difficult
to understand it. It provided a new court, additional
protection for women deserted by their husbands, and
tntroduced other great changes, which were worthy of
more consideration. Then they had added to these the
question of divorce, which was to go to the new courts;
and all the amendment the noble earl sought to secure
was that the matter might undergo further and more sa-
tisfactory discussion.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that the question now
came to this, that those who voted against the amend-
ment would knowingly vote in favour of tho law of the
land being made contradictory to the law of Christ.
(No, no.) If the bill were passed without the amend-
ment they would allow the adulterous woman to marry
ag 4M3 in the time of her husband, and that was directly
oppolied to the law of our Lord. He believed, with the
noble lord, that the people of this country were not yet
alive to the ies
Pt?rtance of this question, and he had re-
ceived
communications which showed that even the
clergy themselv
which it would reawe:le 7re not aware of the consequences to
allow the amendmee trusted the Government would
t
necessity of moving the
rejection nd thus save him the
of the bill when the
question was put that it
The LORD CHANCEL
thought the amendment
proposed by the noble earl did e gedo to the objections
which the right rev, prelate had ells ihelle thought he II had a right to complain of the Course
would
earl bad
tlaeearlwas
idle
edii
adopted. The best course to take
third ve been to
move the rejection of the bill .
whereas the amendment of the noble
remained as it stood, providing as it did merely that the
new new court should not be called a court of ,a Jia
divorce, but simply a court of marriage. mear)eelfaehe
(the Lord Chancellor) was of opinion with the noble lord
that the bill would make the marriage bond as lax as it
was in some of the northern States of Germany,
he would throw it on the fire rather than in-
troduce it to their lordships ; but the principie
had been acknowledged 200 years, and to transfer these
divorces from a legislative to a judicial tribunal could
never be thought to produce the results which had been
shadowed forth by the noble earl. (Hear.) There was no
reason that the expense should be more than in a court
of Jaw. The courts of Westminster were open to the
poor man, who could sue in forma panperis where the
party was not worth 5/., and he hoped it would beex-
tended. By this bill the area in which relief could be