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

—the eastern or the western ! Ucduuhtedly, in the
west ; and where was the laxity with regard to
marriage the greatest ? unquestionably in the east ;
while in the west the doctrine was triumphantly
established that Christian marriage was indissoluble.
You then passed through a Long period, until you
came to the Reformation ; and his hon. and learned
friend, of course, had seen that indissolubility of mar-
riage was a popish principle, and that with the Reforma-
tion came in the Protestant principle of dissolubility.
And here he must thank his hon. and learned friend for
the gratitude he bad expressed on account of his (Me.
Gladstone'e) not having lived in the middle ages—
(laughter)—and he felt the compliment the more as
coming from a gentleman of such broad, straightforward
views—(laughter)—of a character like that which was
formerly described as "rusticus, abnormis sapiens"—
(laughter)—and if he was entitled to take rants among
the "subtilissimi docti," he could only say that to no
period of his life was he able to attribute his improve-
ment in that art of subtlety, but to that in which he was
for two or three years rapt closely associate I with his
hon. and learned friend. (Laughter.) His hon. and
learned friend had spoken of the principles of the Re-
formation, and be had read a passage which the house
understood was quoted from the Reformatio Legum.
But it was not quoted.from that work. The Reforinatio
Legum was the first that really opened the fl )(Agates,
and let in divorce wholesale, and he was sure that when
the house found what was established on the authority of
the Reformatio Legum, they would be cautious how they
admitted that it laid down Protestant principles ; for it
admits of divorce for five or six kinds of offences besides
adultery, and was in that respect worse than the bill of
his hon. and learned friend, elthough in two particulars
it was better, for it did not violate the principle of equa-
lity between the sexes, but retained an identity of rights
between them, and moreover it treated adultery as a
capital off nce. His hon. and learned friend was desirous
of founding his bill on the Protestant princilles of the
Reformation, and he had got a case in which Archbishop
Creamer took part. Now he had the utmost respect for
Archbishop Cranmer, who, though not without weak-
, nesses, was a good and a wise man ; but that any ()pi-
Ilion of Archbishop Cranmer, formed as it was in diffi-
cult and fluctuating times, was to govern opinions at
this time of day, was a proposition so ex‘ravagant that
it ought not to be pressed upon them. His hon. and
learned friend bad in his speech given them a ninth
beatitude—(laughter)—he had laid it down that blessed
is the man that, puts his trust in the received version—
(laughter) —that is, blessed is the man wha did not exer-
cise the faculties and the judgment which God had given
him; nay, more, his hon. and learned friend was not
satisfied in giving them a ninth beatitude, but he had
given them a new article of faith, for ho said that when
the Protestant churches all wont together they could not
possibly be wrong. (Hear, hear.) Now, whether his
hon. and learned friend was right or not in saying that
when all the Protestant churches went together they
could not be wrong, the fact was that this was a case in
which the Protestant churches had not gone together ;
not one. ("Hear, hear," and laughter.) His hon. and
learned friend said that by tbo law of the Church of
England until the sixteenth century marriage was
dissoluble ; but he (Mr. Gladstone) did not know on
what authority that assumption was founded. His hon.
and learned friend said that until the case of
Foljambe in the sixteenth century, and all through
the reign of Elizabeth, marriage was dissoluble
by the ecclesiastical courts ; and if that were so it
determined the character of the Reformation ; but the
"Reformatio Legum" never acquired the authority of
law, and it was a vital point for his hon. and learned
friend to show that a divorce was a great protestant
principle of the law of England in the time of Elizabeth.
He brought forward a proof of that a passage from
Salkeld, in which it was said that the ancient divorces
were divorces "a vinculo nuatrimonii," and therefore it
was to be inferred that there were divorces "a vinculo
matrimonii" before the Reformation ; but he (Mr. Glad-
stone) would assert that loose and random words like
those, accompanied by no reference to any author, were
simply worthless and without value. It appeared by a
tabular statement which he had before him that in the
reign of George 111., from the year 1760 to 1799 the
number of divorces was 95 ; the next 31 years down to
1830 slowed 82 divorces ; and from that time down to
1855 the number was 99. If it was considered how
great had been the extension of the wealthy class into
this country to which alone a divorce was a possibility,
it must be a matter of congratulation that the practice
bad spread so slowly. Although he had trespasse Iso
largely on the patience of the house, he must yet say a
few words on the religious part of the quesion and some-
thing on the varied effects which were likely to be the
result of the measure. He felt, with his noble friend
the member for Leicestershire, the hardship and
injustice which would be inflicted on the clergy if
this bill passed as it stood. He confessed that he
did not believe that the house would back the
Attorney General in this design of compelling the clergy
to do an act against which their consciences and their
principles revolted ; but if the house should back the
Attorney-General in thus compelling the clergy to the
performance of a duty against which they conscientiously
and earnestly protested, why then farewell to all peace
within the church ; and his noble and learned friend who
came before the house enunciating his glib doctrine of
obedience to the law, would bavo done more to destroy
the union of the churCh than if be had voted with the
hon. member for Sheffield on every division against
every regimes donum, or every grant for ministers'
money. He protested against such a limitation of con-
science, and be would assert that if they and the laity
wore to have consciences, they must look on the church
as being governed by something more Christian than
that house. He protested against a doctrine so degrad-
ing as that the religion they professed, in its spiritual
matters and in the handling of its great mysteries, was
I to be cut and carved at the wish and pleasure of his noble
I and learned friend or of any majority of that house what-
ever. Ho did not deny the high functions of the Houwi
of Commons. That house might be a consenting party
to, and add its authority to whatever regulation was in-
troduced into the religion of the state; but neither the
l principles of law or religion permitted them to do any-
thing in the way of remodelling great spiritual questions.
One word on the great social question which was in-
volved in this measure. He must say that he believed
that the bill committed a fatal error in the mode in
which it shaped and directed its enactments. But the
great error of all was in its principle, and the effect
which it must be feared it would have on the people of
England. He did not say whether the effect would be
I slow or rapid. God grant that it might be slow, lie
I did not exactly understand the significancy of the quo-
tation of his hon. and learned friend when he said,
" lliacos intra muros peccatur et extra ;" but it had
occurred to him that it ought to refer to the lax state
of society with regard to divorce both in town and
1 country. (Laughter.) He owned that he did not take
1 a sanguine view of the condition of this country
with regard to the large class of dangerous evils.
The evils of prostitution could hardly be greater iu
any other ; and as regarded another evil of that chess—
nameTy, incontinence before marriage, it was so preva-
lent both in town and country as to humble us to the
dust when we considered with how little strictness our
Christian obligations were. observed. But there was a
bright aide of the question ; for as regarded the lower
class in this country, and especially with regard to those
who, living out of London, were removed from tempta-
tion, the observance of the marriage tie was faithful in
the highest degree. If it was true that there was a de•
plowable laxity of chastity before marriage, coupled with
strictness after marriage, that was a fact which required
explanation, and an explanation of it might be found in
the known indissolubility of marriage by the law of Eng-
lend—(heer)—and every man and woman in England,
and still more in Ireland, who entered into the marriage
state, knew that they were entering into a tie and an
engagement that was indissoluble. He concluded by
declaring that he would resist this measure, because be
believed it was not only retrograde in its character, but
full of dangerous consequences to our social system ;
doubtful as regarded the construction of Scripture, be-
cause it was undoing what Christianity had done for us,
and bringing us into a state of laxity with regard to mar-
riage which Christianity did not recognise.
Sir G. GREY, after expressing his admiration of the
speech of the right hon. gentleman, and his with that it
had been delivered on the previous evening, declared his
intention of not entering largely on the Scriptural part
of the question, believing, as he dP, that exercitations on
doubtful passages of Scripture tended rather to weaken
than to establish the authority of the Scriptures. He
bad considered the Scriptural part of the question, and
had no hesitation in saying that no binding or inflexible
rule was laid down on the subject. He would, in the
first place, notice what his right hon. friend called the
precipitate course of legislation on this matter. Instead
of the subject having now been brought under the con-
sideration of Parliament for the first time, it had been
frequensly discussed in one branch of the legislature,
and commented on in various publications ; and
he thought the time bad arriven when, a bid having
been sent down from the other house embodying the de-
liberate convictions of that house, the opportunity should
be taken of effecting what he considered a great improve-
ment of the law. His right hon. friend had intimated
that the country did not under:stand the question, and
that he bad received a petition from Cornwall founded on
the supposition that a law was about to be passed under
which divorces might be granted if people should
quarrel. (Laughter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—It was not a petition.
Sir C-. GREY—Then it was a letter from some cor-
respondent of the right lion, gentleman, who must have
greatly enlightened him as to the facts of the case. If
the correspondents of his right hon. friend entertained
he should deeply have regretted the
thisct haerrseeddain:jgcsnuo:t,di theonvct:iiri:leipc oh 2 iltiieo u
trustedvzhicli wouldwoui havedisp
dispel
prevented
absurd illusion. (hear.) He had listened to the greater
part of the speech of his riehthon. friend with the highest
interest and admiration, but with the most unfeigned and
unbounded astonishment. His right hon. friend treated
the measure as an intended innovation on the law of
England, never heard of until the present time—affirmed
the indissolubility of marriage, and condemned the bill
as partial in its operation. Now, he was rather surprised
to hear such argurnen ts advanced by his right hon. friend.
In 1850, owing to complaints which had been made of
abuses and scandals connected with the existing law and
practice of granting divorces, a commission wasappointed
by the Crown, consict:ng of gentlemen of great learning
and experience, to inquire into the law of divorce, and
the mode in which divorces could be obtained. That com-
mission proceeded on the notoriout fact that divorces
were attainable—that the law and practice of Parliament
sanctioned divorces—and their duty was to inquire and
suggest the method by which that end could to attained.
The report of that commission was presented in 1853,
and in 1854 Lord Aberdeen's Government, of which
his right hon. frletel was a distineuished member, le-
troduced a bill on the subject. (Hear, bear.) That bid
—which was presented to the House of Lords by the
then Lord Chancellor was entitled, •` A Bill to transfer
the jurisdiction iu matriusonisl oatmeal to the Court of