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

ng a reformation which on all hands was most earnestly but I want to know, among other things, in making a '
desired, change in a law of this antiquity and importance, what
Mr. GLADSTONE—My right hon. friend does not, prospect of stability is afforded for this new system you
it: appears, feel the force of the objections which have are about to introduce; and it is material in deciding that
hieen urged by the right hon. member far Oxfordshire, question, to c insider that this new plan has never yet
been ad ia.,e 1 in any part of Christendom, or I believe in
He thinks it impossible that the scandals in the existing
marriage law should be continued fer another year, but any country outside Christendom, but certainly not
within the limits of Christendom, either in Ro nan Ca-
-1 hardly know to what scandals my right hon. friend
tholic countries, countries of the Eestern Church, or
alludes. If he speaks of the defective state of our law
Protestant countries. That appears to me to be a good
with respect to the protection of wives and husbands
respectively as to their earnings in case of separation, I reason, among a multitude of others, why wo should have
admit the scandal, but that scandal requires a different ample time to consider what we are about. We are not
remedy, and is not, as I conceive, affected by the motion i provided with the requisite information at this moment to
enable us to legislate satisfactorily. Now, sir. there was
of the right hon. men-lesr for Oxfordshire. If the Govern-
a point referred to by the right hon, gentleman (Mr. Hen-
try really do desire, namely, obtaining better protection went really aims at doing what the people of this coun-
loy) of immense importance. If the right hon, gentleman
for themselves and their families in case of the miscon-
had not raised the question by his motion, if the bill had
duct of husband or wife respectively, then, I say, let my been passed in haste and without due deliberation, what
right hon. friend make us that offer—let him propose according to the right hon, gentleman, should we have
the simple, easy portion of his enactments having refer-
done? Under the idea of legislating for the benefit of the
ence to this subject, and the scandals of the marriage
poor and middle classes we should, by passing this bill,
law in England may all be rerxedied during the present actually cut off from those classes those facilities for the
minor and ecclesiastical divorce which they now enjoy
session without difficulty. That portion of the subjec.,
t
would not lead us to the rocks and shoals and quick- through the medium of the local courts. The bill was
d
sands which encompass the rest of the measure. But discussed during two months in the House of Lords,
and by all the learned lore of the country. Yet they
my right hon. friend bad perhaps in view another de-
scription of scandal, which I admit exists, although its never found this out. It was reserved for the patient
importance has been enormously exaggerated, namely,
acumen of the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-
the scandal that persons possessed of a certain amount fordshire to find that, while we supposed that we were
of property can get a dissolution of marriage, while nu-
legislating for the benefit of the poor and middle classes
e body else oan. This is a scandal—l do deny not it—(hear, —assuming it to be for their benefi —it cut off from the
hear)—which deserves the grave consideration of the great mass of the people those legal judicial remedies in
house as to what manner it may dealt with ; but surely
suits of marriage of which hitherto they have been ena-
there is no overpowering necessity for dealing with it at bled to avail themselves. In consequence of a converse-
the present moment. (Hear, hear.) The necessity does
tion I had with the right hon. gentleman I have been led
not arise in the recess, because it relates to Acts of Par-
to ascertain how the case stands in Scotland, in order to
!lament, and Parliament may very well consider in ano-
ascertain the effects of localising the courts, for though
titer session what is to be done with the law of marriage ; we have no means of dissolving marriage, we have the
but Ido hope that my right hon, friend will not say that means, as the law stands, of effecting judicial separation.
I
this scandal constitutes a matter of very grave public In that respect our system is curiosly contrasted with
importance. The course taken by the right hon. mem-
that which exists in Scotland, for while we have got local
her for Oxfordshire is in my opinion a most legitimate
courts to administer a limited: law of divorce, Scotland
course. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says has no local courts, but administers the law—not a limited
law like ours, but a law extending to the dissolution of
that he feels in his own mind a real difficulty as to what
m
is to be done in this matter. He does not appear tearriage—by means of a central tribunal. What could
h
deny that the whole question of the state of the law of have been more natural in any full consideration of the
marriage may justify the consideration of Parliament, subject with a view to legisletion than to have inquired
but my right hon. friend, suspecting the right hon. gen-
into the state of the facts as regards Scotland, and to
aleman of a latent determination to oppose everything have a certained from those facts what the probable
snit of concentrating the matrimonial suits iu London
re-
that may be proposed, puts on his motion a construction
it was not intended to bear. Now, is it not a possible would be. Fee there we have an example before our
eyes, and it is a very important point whether we are to
state of things that there may be many persons
entertain matrimonial suits in a central court in London
in this house who do feel a difficulty as to the course ttat
ought to be taken in this matter ? (Hear.) We must or in 30 local courts spread all over the country. Upon
all be aware that it would be impossible to exaggerate that point we have no information. When, however, I
'
the difficulties of the case, and are we to be so presuaisp-
ay how important the question was in reference to re
stricting the facilities given to the middle and poorer
tuous as to think that in a moment we can see our way
classes, I endeavoured to see how the case stood in Soot-
through these difficulties, or be so debased in our notion;
land. I spoke to the Lord Advocate, but he had no infor-
greatof puled() duty, as to think it justifiable to deal with this
oration to give. . Nobody thoughtit worth while to iq-
and sacred snbject, in any of the ordinary modes
of Parliamentary operation ? There is one consolation quire, and no information could be obtained. The noble
in approaching this subject, and that is that it has no lord could tell use of the number of divorces, but as to the
connection with the existence of any Government, or the habitation of the parties be could tell me nothing. I
principles of any party. It is a rnatterin respect to which went back to the report of the commission of 1853, and
then I found an account of about 100 divorces that had
there are obligations affecting us in common as Chris-
tians and legislators, and which have no connection with taken place within some 6 or 8 years perhaps, but the
political views or obligations, and therefore I trust that number of years does not matter. The names of the
my right hon. friend will not ascribe views which he parties were described, and in most cases the residence
himself disclaims to the right hon. member for Oxford-
was given, but riot in all ; but there was not one of those
shire. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman wishes for time divorces—or if one, it was an exception to the rule—
to determine on his course, but my right hon. friend says, that came from the remote parts of Scotland. As far
as the information I was thus enabled to obtain goes,
" Nu, you must vote without consideration." I protest
against that mode of argument, which, coming from so the appearance of the case is this—that the law of
divorce in Scotland is not a law of divorce for Scotland,
high an authority as the Secretary of State, brings the
question out of the atmosphere in which it ought to be but for Elinburgh, Leith, and the immediate neighbour-
discussed, into the ordinary foul and fetid atmosphere of hood of those towns which are in easy and cheap com-
political and party motive. (Hear.) I frankly own that I munication with them ; but the great bulk of the rural
tio not entertain any doubt on the main question involved districts, especially in the northern and western portions
in the present bill—l mean as to the true interpretation of of the country, are completely cut off from access to
the Christian law of marriage ; but at the same time I divorce, by the fact of there being only one court. Now,
make for myself the same petition as that of the right is that right—is that a system we should introduce into
honaa gentleman. I wish the legislation may not be this country ? (Hear, hear.) It is all very well for legal
adapted to my view of Christian doctrine, but to the reformers who draw diagrams of law reform on paper,
general wants and exigencies of the country. I say that and view them with the accuracy and precision of a
we should have the ordinary means of testing those mathematician dealing with a problem, to propose a
wants and exigencies, by giving every opportunity for central court with its well-paid officers and its staff of
deliberation. In my opinion the sentiments of the people advocates, and to conclude that they have done all that
is necessary. But here is a practical point involved, and
of this country, of the parties moat interested, namely,
the clergy, and of members of Parliament—all import- I have mentioned these facts to show the importance, as
ant elements in the mass of public opinion—should have
affecting the rights of the poorer and middle classes, of
the proposal for establishing a single central court in-
full opportunity for expression. I do not come
a cut and dry system of opinion, but to do my duty as a here with
stead of a number of local courts spread through the
member of Parliament, according to the best arrange-
eountry. (Hear.) The population of Edinburgh and
ment that the case will permit, and I cannot property
Leith is about one-twentieth of that of the whole of Scot-
determine on that arrangement if the discussion be now land, so that they ought to have about one-twentieth of
precipitated. My right hon. friend says that the attend-
the divorces if the business of the courts were equally
ance is such as to leave no room for apprehension that distributed. But by the return contained in the
the meaeure will not be fairly discussed. Now, if I thought report of the commissioners to which I have
alluded, it appears that instead of one-twentieth,
that the present attendance in this house were the at-
Edinburgh and Leith, without speaking of the
tandems, of members waiting to dispose of divers bills, I
neighbotarhoad, furnish one-third of the whole
should agree with my right hon, friend, but no one knows
better than my right hon. friend that it is not the bills or the divorces that take place in Scotland.
This shows that the question of the local courts is vital
that secure the present attendance. There is a question
to the whole matter. Do not let me be told that this
coming on next Monday which has much to do with the
atteneance of members, there lea political crisis impending may be all very true ; that we can make these courts
on the next two or three days, and a possible collision be-
local afterwards. It is a clear axiom that we ought to
avoid perpetual meddling with the law of marriage. We tween the two houses of Parliament. There is also a
question relating to the compensation of certain eecle- should establish what we think a good system, but not
siastical officers which has not yet been disposed of by
be continuelly worrying a subject of this kind with per-
the Attorney-General, and which has much more to do petual changes. (Hear.) I would ask the house to con-
with the attendance of members in town theta the Divorce cider the number of questions that are involved—ques-
tions that are not to be regarded as of mere detail, but Bill. I believe that for the next few days members will
keep togetherto discusethelndian mutiny and the griev- which, nevertheless, can only bo considered in committee,
ances of Doctors' Commons, but that when these two inasmuch as the opinion of members can only be given
b questions are out of the way, the 40 gentlemen holding by means of changes proposed. If the right hon. gentle
man thinks that we have so little to discuss he will be
office, and about 40 volunteers of unusual zeal, will be
undeceived when we come to the second reading. I will
the whole representation of the House of Commons to
dispose of the Divorce Bill. Ido not appeal on this point refer shortly to some points of the utmost importance
to argument. I appeal to what is better. My right hon. which naus; be discussed when we come to consider the
friend says that the righthon. member for Oxfordshire has bill itself, You have to consider whether are prepared
adopted an unusual course. It may be an unusual course, to establish for England offhand, without inquiry, but
based upon the opinion of the house, a sytem which no
bto; it is called for by unu-ual circumstances, and I ask
other country has ever seen ; or whether you will adopt
my right hon. friend and the Attorney-General to let
roe know on what occasion a bill of this nature, segos-
some one of those systems that have the sanction and the
tude, and gravity was ever before submitted to Parlia-
authority of previous legislation—that is, whether you
went the first time for consideration on the 24th of
will extend the principle of dissolution of marriage to
July 3 The Secretary of State says we ought to take the other causes besides adultery, which, in the judgment
various discussions in the Howe of Lords as a proof of of men as wise as yourselves, have been held to be valid
the maturity of this measure, but he entirely misunder-
causes for the dissolution of the marriage tie ? (Hear,
stood the right hon. member for Oxfordshire. It the
hear.) There is one English-authority that should in-
duce us to adopt that view—viz., the Reformation League
gress, then there might be something to reckon when
succession of discussions had moved in one line of pro-
upon which we shall have much to say when we come to
the bill came to this house, but I take the case to be the second reading of the hilt But let us look for a
exactly the reverse ; the upshot of the statement of the moment at the inadmissibility of that plea. The Refer-
right hon. member for Oxfordshire I take to be the re-
matron League does not say you ought to have divorce
verse, and that the discussions have not exhibited one for adultery only, but for adultery and a number of other
causes ; and where is the man who will ask us to pro-
unif arn line of progress, but a fliietuating, vacillating,
c " wahling” movement, indicating the absence of clear teed upon the authority of the Reformation League to
conviction or fixed principles; and, if that be true, the give divorce for adultery and refuse it for those other
c multitude of discussions el e where and the various alto- causes which that authority recognises ? There is another
point in which the framers of this bill have overthrown
rations are valuatde to show that the priuciple is yet un-
the authority of the Reformation League. That proceeds
solved, and that we go into the debate without any as-
sistance from those who have preceded us, I must also
say that this is the fist time in which the House of rn-Coupon the principle of equality of rights between the two
sexes, and I can only say fur myself that on every occa-
s MODS has been called on to entertain the subject of the sign when the subject under consideration wiil admit of
dissolution of marriage. It is true that commissions have it, I will be here to assert that principle. (Cheers.) It
been issued by both houses, and the measure has been is impossible not to do great mischief to begin nose in the
discussed by the House of Lords, but that discussion is middle of the nineteenth century to undo for womankind
of very little practical importance. According to my that which Christianity has done for it and to say that
experience, nothing is practically before the country un- that which shall authr,rise a man to dismiss his wife
al it comes to tee House of Commons. No doubt the shall not entitle the wife to dismiss her husband. (Loud
' bill has been ably discussed in the House of Lords, but cheers.) If there is one thing more palpable that another
the country Ook no notice whatever of these debater,. I in reference to our religion, it is the eeal that God Al-
am not offering a mere artitrary opinion, but giving the mighty has placed upon the equality of man and woman.
results of experience. There were no petitions sent to the
(Hear.) Then there is the question, is a lultery to be
House of Lords, nor was any anxiety exhibited out of made a criminal offence ? Besides that and the other
do rs, There were, to be sure, a couple of stray pamph- questions I base touched upon, as for instance—are we
lets on one side or the other, but, mark, what was the to have one central court only, and limit the facilities for
case when the bill came to thellouse of Commons? From divorce to London and its immediate neighbourhood—
that day our t Lisle has groaned with an increasing num- comes a whole family of questions when we touch upon
her of petitions. In the Lords there was no demonstra- those subjects which we dealt with in the numerous
tion on the part of the clergy, but now, sir, there has petition which have been presented to the house. (Hear.)
been put into your hands a declaration, which had been It is a much debated point whether we are bound to
prepared in 10 or 12 days, which now has the signatures frame the legislation of this house upon the law of
of 6,000 clergymen, and is receiving hundreds of addi- Scripture. That is a question upon which I will not
Lionel signatures every day.
Neither are those signing of presume now to enter—it is far too solemn to be die-
one party in the church, but appear to represent gene- cussed on an occasion like the present—but by this bill
rally the views of, the clergy on this subject. Trierefore, we are treating with levity matters which do not belong
the fact ins, that it is only when the bill comes down to to our functions. Ido outspeak of the censcienceeof the
this house that the country begins to believe that the
clergy, or the interest of the clergy. I speak of the re-
matter is really one for legislative enactment, and I must
, ligion we profess—(hear)—and I do say it is a matter of
say that it is not very difficult to understand why the deep consequence that we should take care that in our
country should be sceptical as to these changes in the legislation upon this subject wedo not offer profanation to
law ofecclesiastical jurisdiction. Wehavecalled " Wolf" the religious faith we entertain, by dealing with those
too often during the last few years, so that the introduc- sacred rites which came down to us with the authority
Lion of bills fur reforming ecclesiastical courts and testa- of the Apostles themselves, as we would deal with some
aleatory jurisdiction is looked upon as mere formula, to turnpike trust of board of health bill. (Hear.) Among
be subsequently as formally withdrawn, and therefore is ail parties in this house, where all classes are represented
there a rooted scepticism in the mind of the country. At it will, lam sure, be felt a matter of the utmost diffi-
all events there can be no doubt but that the last two or_ culty to deal with the religious part of this question.
three weeks have given evidence of a strong feeling In Ido not assume that the religious part of the ques-
the country. Two petitions have been sent to me, one of tion is to be conclusive in governing your proceedings.
which says it has been signed by every person of mature Whether it is or is not Ido not say—but you have es-
age in the parish, and another by every churchman and tablished in this country a system of civil marriage
dissenter, Ido not urgs these as a reason why the bee apart from the special sanction of the Christian religion ;
should be rejected, but as showing that there is a feeling whether you choose to introduce as a counterpart of that
abroad which should be treated with deep respect by the civil marriage a civil divorce and re-marriage, is a ques-
house and the Government, and that we should take no tion of the utmost importance and gravity. I venture to
step in such a measure without having taken every pre. say you cannot pass this bill as it is, as regards the
caution to enable us to arrive at a just conclusion. The clergy. (Hear, hear,) I make the appeal to the house and
right hon. member f r Oxfordshire is accused of dealing the Government. Their own feelings must teach them
with the details of this bill. I know not on what ground that some alteration must necessarily be made in the bill
nor how he could have taken a different course. He bad in its religious bearings, but I must say we ought net
endeavoured to show that there was a mass of work to to be asked to deal with the important question involved
be done, and he wishes that we should do it in a work- in this bill for the first time on the 24th July. (Hear.)
manlike manner. We must not proceed in a hasty or The right hon. gentleman opposite has been found fault
slovenly manner, for we areplaying with edge tools, and with for raising the question of delay. I think be has
something perhaps sharper, for we pieroa the heart of taken a wise and a judicious course. He did not wish
the country to the quick when we approach such a sub- to commit himself to an entire opposition to the bill, and
ject as the law of marriage. I want time to discuss points he proposed that more time should be given for consi-
of importance, and notwithstanding the anathema of my deration. I may be more opposed to the bill than ho is
right hon. friend I must refer to some of those points on on some points, but there are others upon which lam
the present occasion, seeing that we are summoned on most anxious to keep my mind free, and I put it to the
the 2.lth July, against all precedent, to enter for the first house whether at this period of the session it is not fair
time on a a question of first-rate importance. In the first and just to raise the question of time, and to submit fiat
place, it must be recollected that the proposal made to us question in a form distinct and separate from the merits
is not only inconsistent with our system of law, but is a of the bill ? In such a form, then, when we go to the
proposal to adept a new system of law, entirely without division on. the right hon• gentleman's motion, they
precedent in the legislation of any country. If the bill would give no vote on the principle of the bill, but
gave but two alternatives—one, the indissoluble mar- merely upon lire question whether they ought net to
riacze, to which we have adhered since England was have time for deliberation before they were called upon
England ; the other, dissoluble marriage, well to decide upon a question of such delicacy and difficulty.
uuderstood, carefuly limited, sustained by the clear au- Mrs BOWYER supported the motion of Mr. Henley,
thority of learned mon, and the legislation of other coun- whic'a he thought roust recommend itself to the wisdom,
tries—the ground would be much cleared and simplified; geed. Bens°, and prudence of the house. He had looked
but there is not a country which has legislated with a thr: 'ugh the bill to see what it contained, and the result
view to make marriage dissoluble which has legislated in was startling. There was one principle of the bill which
the Fame manner, Tee proposal is novel, not only to the wag.most dangerous, and that was the principle of the
English law but to the law of Christendom. It is one for diasolubility of marriage. The bill interfered with the
which we cannot find a precedent in the custom of any cretninal law. It created a new offence. For the first
country. No country has ever made marriage dissoluble time
that has not made it dissoluble on other principles, and it Pr' ,posed to make a change in the ecclesiastical juris-
more largely than you are going to do it now. It may be pro fier=ce of the country, and to alter the cat funda-
said that this is a proof of your moderation. Ido not "" aiultery was to be made a criminal offence. Then
mast
point of ecclesiastical law as it bore on the rela-
dispute the moderation of the framers of the measure, I ' eons of the ' , state. to ea, it altered the civil law of
t a.l ,
do not dispute the moderation of the commissioners from property in - regard to the relations between husband and
whose recommendations it has emanated. It may be a
wife. Again, the bill decided a most important religious
proof of their moderation, but I am not here to brie
qua t* v., and that without the means for coming to a ;
indictment against them for want of moderation '
g an
decision,2in. ' The bill, he contended, contained matter for
'oil the one hand, or to praise them for model ation on '
ifour bills, each of which would require
(he ()tiler, three dna ,vr