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

THE SUN, LONDoN SATVRDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1, 1857

against the return for the county of Huntingdon. The
committee reported that John Mayer Heathcote, Esq.,
was not duly elected, and that Edward Fellowes, Esq.,
was duly elected.
The Horr. MEMBER moved that the Clerk of the
Crown do attend the house with the last return for the
county of Huntingdon on Monday next to amend the
same by erasing the name of John Mayer Heathcote,
Esq.
Agreed to.

sassing divorce bills without question. I do not dissem-
ble that that creates a real and serious difficulty in the
case, but this I do say, that of three alternatives—one,
that of passing this bill ; another, the continuing to pass
private bills as before until we can see our way better ;
and the third, that of stopping private acts altogether—
the alternative of passing this bill at this time is immea-
surable, the most dangerous. I frankly own that I serer
saw go eater signs—and I mean to adduce some of those
signs-. —of the crude state of what may be called the par-
liamet mind on this subject. It was only during the
present year that I myself found leisure to examine it,
and until within the last few nights I myself was quite
unfit to pass an opinion on the bill. We are told in
the public journals that ten minutes, or at most half
an hour. is enough for the settlement of the ques-
tion. --,Such dicta as this may prove the rashness with
which we deal with the !most sacred of human in-
terests, but they do not lessen our responsibility,
or save us from:future embarrassments or future liability.
It is said that we have not objected to these private bills,
and the inference drawn is, that net having objected to
these bills, we ought not to object to the measurjanow
before the house. My answer to such argument is, that
when Parliament has entered into a course of private bills
in the nature of privilegia, it ceases to be competent to
members to take objection to these bills. We had an
instance of that the other day, in the case of Shepherd's
Disability Removal Bill. There were four or five prece-
dents, but the rule is that if you object to any private
bill, you must raise the general question. I concur in this
and it is the one general correction which I shall bare to
apply to the very incorrect statement of the Attorney-
General, that this fixedsystem is so little fixed that when
these divorce bills showed a tendency to grow, there has
been a strong parliamentary tendency to check them.
Twice during the last century, and once at the close of
the century, attempts were made with that view. I grant
those attempts failed; but that only proves more strongly
the necessity of full discussion, and that now, when we
take a new starting point, we are bound to examine the
whole matter. It may be said that the two statements—
one, that there is great danger in precipitancy, and the
other that there is a strong feeling in the country—cross;
for, if we legislate hastily, when the public feeling is
strong against us, we can easily retrace our steps. But,
in my opinion, to rely on such a representation is to rely
on a gross fallacy. The feeling of the country is, I believe
against the measure ; but if this measure is passed, al-
though against the feeling of an overwhelming majority
of Christian husbands and wives, I believe you will have
constituted an interest, a party, a sect, who will have a
presumptive right in the new Ivy, and that thus it will
become impossible for you to recal your hasty decision.
What then is the effect of the bill before us, which is said
to be of such modest scope and extent? The object of the
bill is to deal with marriage as a whole, and in that aspect
it is so admirably treated by Lord Stowell, I need not apo
logise for quoting the passage from his work. Lord
Stowell describes the threefold character of marriage ;
first, as a law of nature antecedent to the formation of
society, and an important but merely personal contract
between two parties ; and next, when society is formed,
as not merely a personal but a civil contract with civil
obligation?. Thirdly, when the religious principle is re-
ceived into a state, marriage become a religious contract,
accompanied by plighted vows, which Heaven is called
upon to witness. Finally, the idea of the indissolubility
of marriage was taken from Scripture. Lord Stowell
thus distinguishes between the different characters of
marriage ; and I think the great difficulty we have to deal
with is, that the house is not qualified to deal with mar-
riage in all these three characters. (Hear, hear.) If it
undertakes only to deal with the civil consequences
and obligations cf marriage which are within its pro-
vince, I believe the problem would be easy of solution,
but it likewise undertakes to determine what shall be
the effect of solemn vows passed between one individual
and another ; and lastly it undertakes, not being vested
with any theological authority, to eet itself up as a ruler
over the consciences of men, and to absolve them from
the obligations of marriage which had been undertaken
by solemn vow in the face of the congregation. (Hear,
hear.) In my opinion, a great difficulty arises from
taking that view, and it would be a great relief to my
mind if we consented to legislate for that for which we
are competent, namely, the civil consequences and re-
sponsibilities of marriage. To admit that vows taken
before the throne of God are to be influenced by the
power of this house would, in my mind, be a most de•
graded doctrine. (Hear, hear) Having now described
the great effect of the bill, I shall proceed to examine
some of the assertions of the Attorney-General. He says
that although technically we have no code on the subject
of mart iage, yet that in point of fact the proceedings of the
legislature in such matters are judicial proceedings ; that
the code is as well known as any other branch of the law,
and that it has been in force for 200 years. I cannot admit
this latter as a correct statement. The practice has
been in a state of growth for 200 years, but it is not
100 years since the system has arrived at its present
state. Is it a system even yet ! My hen. and learned
friend says that the code is as well ascertained and
clearly defined as any other branch of our law. (" Hear,"
from the Attorney-General.) Is that true ? What says
the standing order of the House of Lords ? That no bill
of divorce shall be introduced in which there is not a
provision forbidding the adulterate parties to inter-
marry. Every bill is introduced with that clause ; and
although the clause is subsequently struck out, it shows
that the law is one way and the practice another ; and
yet my hon. and learned friend says that the code is as
clearly defined as any other branch of our law. My hon.
andl learned friend says that divorce was the prin-
ciple of the Reformation. I will come to that by-and
by ; but further than that, he says that the indissolu-
bility of marriage depended upon its being a sacrament.
My hon, and learned friend was not very distinct on
that point. [An observation from the Attorney-General.]
Does my hon. and learned friend disclaim that doctrine
of the sacrament ! for that is the position on which the
promoters of the bill take their stand. If you look at the
report of the commission upon which this bill is founded,
you will find that the sacramental chapter of marriage is
the point upon which their report turns. It is contended
thatin Roman Catholic times marriage was held to he a
sacrament, and therefore indissoluble, and that the Re-
formation, in taking away the sacramental character
took away its indissolubility. Now, I say that that asser-
tion is entirely without foundation. The Council of Trent
has declared that marriage is indissoluble independently
of its sacramental oha-acter. On the other hand, in the
Eaetern church, in which marriage is held to be a sacra-
ment, it is also dissoluble. So much for dissolubility and
the sacramental character. (Hear.) I cannot compliment
my hon. and learned friend on embarking his fortunes in
so crazy a craft as a position of this description.
(Cheers.) My hon. and learned friend says that the bill
makes no change in the law, but merely makes that law
which has been practised for a great number of years.
He would not detain the house by quoting authorities,
not even the authority of the commission of 1853, in
support of the doctrine that the dissolution of marriage
was nnknown to the law of England. He would merely
observe that that was the construction put upon the law
by that commission. Hie hon. and learned friend said
the principle was not new, and he instanced the fact
that private bills authorising divorce were passed every
session. But did it follow from the principle upon which
divorce bills were passed that he was introducing a new
law by this bill ? Why, there could not be a grosser
fallacy; If be were to grant to his hon. and learned
friend that his bill was following out Parliamentary pre-
cedent, still he contended that this was altogether a new
law for the purpose. What did his hon. and learned
friend propose ? Was it a mere continuance of the pre-
cedents upon which he rested his case ? Hitherto they
had practically limited divorce to the wealthy classes of
the community. There was one case he believed on re-
cord of a man suing for divorce in forma pauperis ;
nut speaking generally divorce had been strictly
limited to the highest and wealthiest classes. Now
what did his hon. and learned friend propose ! To pass
a law under which divorce was to be made accessible to
all classes. Was that now the law of England ? They
had in the statute book an act providing that members
of the royal family should net marry without the consent
of the sovereign. But that was not a principle of law for
the whole community—it applied to the royal family, and
to them alone. And this code of laws about which his
hon. and learned friend spoke, and under which he alleged
the system of divorce was established as a principle of
English law was, he contended, as foreign to the British
nation as a whole as was the act relating to royal mar-
riages. The middle and lower classes cared no more for
that code of which his hon, and learned friend spoke—
knew no more about it than if it were a code established
for the benefit of the inhabitants of the planet Jupiter.
There were multitudes in this country who did not even
know of its existence—nay, there were many clergymen
who did not know of it, who had never heard of it.
These divorce bills, limited to one or two in a year, and
confined to a particular class, had no more effect upon
the millions of the population than if no such bill had
ever passed. He made this assertion broadly, for it was
of vital consequence in the consideration of this question.
He contended that hie hon. and learned friend's bill,
partly by its enactments and more by its principle, carry.
ing as it did divorce to all elegises of the country who came
within its conditions, was for all practical purposes novel
and unprecedented. (Hear.) His hon. and learned friend
went at some length into the argument of scriptural au-
thority, and dealing as he was with high spiritual matters,
and calling upon the house to pass a law declaring in
what way the clergy were to act in reference to those
matters, he was not surprised that he had not in this re-
spect followed the example of the commissioners of 1853,
who avoided the religious part of the question. But his
hon. and learned friend had gone largely into the theolo-
gical argument, into which he (Mr. Gladstone) could not
follow him without protesting against being called upon
to discuss the religious question in that house. They
were not competent to do so. His hon. and learned
friend was not competent, and a fortiori he (Mr. Glad.
stone) was not competent to deal with that part of the
case, and he thought it somewhat hard upon them that
they should be called upon to pass the biil in such a
form that they were not competent to deal satisfactorily
with the reasons for and against it. The patience of the
house could not allow time or oppertunay for such a
discussion, which was only suited for the closet of
divines, or a synod of theologians. He was, however,
compelled te touch upon it—usisati-faotorily as it neces-
sarily must be. His hon. and learned friend pointed
with great exultation to what he seemed to think funda-
dawental discrepancies between those who contended no
the authority of Scripture that marriage was not disso-
luble. In reference to the Greek word ropyda, he
said that Mr. Keble, a distinguished divine, gave it one
construction—that a friend of his, Mr. Badderly, gave
it another—and a third authority, a writer in the Quay
terly, put upon the word a different construction, cm-
stituting it to mean idolatry or apostacy. Now the writer
in the Quarterly did not give any -interpretation. lie
discussed various views given by others, without offtr•
ing any judgment in favour of the oce construction or
the other. But what he (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to point
out was this—his hon. and learned friend quoted these
three several constructions, as if they bad been destruc-
tive of each other ; whereas, so far from their being op-

posed, they all agreed upon the one essential point—
that was whether the words of exception in St. Matthew
referred to a particular law of the Jews, which was tran-
sitory in its character, and which, being so, did not ap-
ply to Christians. That was the vital —the essential 1
point, and in that respect be (Mr. Gladstone) contended
all the three constructions agreed. If they interpreted
it to mean idolatry, or apostacy, or adultery, or mar-
riage eith a foreign person, they mast remember that
the Jews bad particular laws of their own, and which-
ever construction of the word sropesia was advanced,
it was capable of being made conformable with the law
of the Jews, but had no bearing upon Christians. But
when his hon, and learned friend talked of discrepancies
between those who held that the best interpretation of
scripture was that which made marriage indissoluble, be
would ask him to consider the discussions between those
who supported the contrary view. Here was a bill pro- ,
fessing to rest on the authority of scripture. Two hon.
gentlemen had spoken in favour of it, his hon. and
learned friend the Attorney-General and the hon. mem-
ber for Hertfordshire. The hon. member for Herts
founded his argument on the verse in the sth of Mat-
thew ; but the Attorney-General threw that verse over-
board altogether. His hon. and learned friend used
words so rerearkai le that he must quote them : " The
argument was, that as the exception in St. Matthew was
not found in St. Mark, or in St. Luke, that therefore
the rule in St. Mark and St. Luke be taken to be the
binding rule. But it never seemed to strike those who
advanced this argument that the reasonable deduction
was that our Saviour, in addressing those who were con-
versant with and were bound by the Jewish law, thought
it requisite in one place to say that he excepted the case
which was provided for by the Jewish law, but thought
it unnecessary in another place to introduce the excep-
tional case, because adultery in the Jewish law was not
a case for divorce, but was subject to criminal punish-
ment. Our Saviour was condemning those things which
were divorces among the Jews, and adultery was not
a case for divorce according to the Jewish law, but
for criminal punishment." The honourable member
for Hertfordshire said, on the contrary, that that verse
in St. Matthew did constitute a real exception and
that the adultery mentioned in the verse did constitute
a ground for divorce applicable to us for a precedent,
but the horn and learned Attorney-General, in flat con-
tradiction to that, threw the verse overboard, and en-
deavoured to show that it could not have any bearing
on the question, because the manner of dealing with
adultery according to the law of the Jews was not by
divorce but by capital punishment. So much for the
harmony on scriptural interpretation of the only two
gentlemen who had ventured to speak in support of the
bill. It was not to be dissembled that much diversity
of opinion prevailed as to the true construction of
Scripture as bearing upon this question. Some though':
the prohibition of divorce—that is divorce carrying with
it.the power of re-marriage—was absolute ; others con-
sidered there was a permission in Scripture for re-
marriage after divorce in the case of adultery alone,
but limited to the innocent man, and not extended to
the innocent woman. That he believed was the most
ancient opinion in the church after the doctrine of indis-
solubility. There were others who went further than
this, and gave the right of re-marriage to both the inno-
cent man and the innocent woman.' Again, there were
some who on Scriptural authority, gave the liberty of
marriage to both parties after divorce for adultery.
Thera was another body of persons—and this was the
view adopted in the Scotch law—who gave it to both
parties, whether innocent or guilty, provided there
was no intermarriage between the gulty parties.
There was a sixth party that permitted such inter-
marriages ; a seventh that considered the Scripture
granted liberty of divorce and re-marriage in case of adul-
tery and also in case of desertion. But the great pecu-
liarity of the present bill was this. He had given seven
different constructions of Scripture on the point, all of
them having some champions and advocates. He did
net say they were any of them supported by sound
argument ; but the peculiarity of the bill was that it
agreed with neither of the seven. (Hoar, hear, and a
laugh.) There wan he believed, a feeling amongst cer-
tain religious people that our marriage law was drawn
too tight ; that by relaxing it in the manner here pro-
posed they would make it square with Scripture ; and
that if that point could be established it was felt that it
would be a conclusive argument for the bill. But no
one could show that it squared with Scripture by any
construction that could be put upon it. What did the
bid do I It relieved—he must so speak of it, he sup-
posed, though the relief was more than doubtful—it gave
relief to the man in case of the woman's adultery, and it
gave relief, not in ease of the man's adultery, but of the
man's adultery under very rare and peculiar circum-
stances. (Hear, hear.) Let them take the authority
of Scripture as given in that house. The Attorney-
General had invited them to force his construction upon
the consciences of 17,000 clergymen. Let theca see
how his hon. and learned friend's construction agreed
with his bill. His hon. and learned friend threw over
the verse in St. Matthew, but found another fur his pur-
pose—that in which our Lord said, "They twain shall
be one flesh, whereupon they were no more twain, but
one flesh." And his hon. and learned friend said that
by the fact of adultery the bond was broken. Was
that the sense of the Scripture I No, it was an arbitrary
sense put on the words by his hon. and learned friend
—a construction put upon them perhaps by Archbishop
Cranmer, and which had been to them an advocate, but
which was not supported by any weight of authority,
and which it was impossible to defend against those who
would press upon his hon. and learned friend for further
changes in the law of marriage if this bill passed. It
was a most arbitrary rule, founded on the notion that
the bond of marriage was so affected by adultery that
it existed no longer. There were many causes far more
fatal to the great obligations of marriage, as disease,
idiocy, crime involving imprisonment for life, and which,
if the bond were so dissoluble, might be urged as a reason
for divorce ; hut that was not what he would dwell upon
at present. His hon. and learned friend said by the fact
of the adultery the marriage bond was destroyed, and
then he asked the house to pass a bill under which nine-
teen out of every twenty adulterers in the land would be
covered with perfect immunity. (Hear, hear.) The
enormous majority of adulteries were adulteries of men ;
and having shown that the adultery destroyed the mar-
riage bond, his hon. and learned friend immediately de-
manded a license to destroy nineteen-twentieths of the
propositions he laid down. (Hear, hear.) Hie hon. and
learned friend commenced at once child murder upon his
own bill—(" hear" and laughter)—for he justified it
from Scripture that marriage could not exist after adul-
tery, and then he proceeded to pass a law to compel
cohabitation, when according to his own showiug, in
nineteen out of twenty cases the parties were no longer
married. (Hear.) Such was the mode in which Scripture
was handled by Attorney-Generals, and in which they in-
vited the house to repose in them confidence so implicit that
you are to force their construction on the consciences of
the clergy, who, if they say it is contrary to their vows,
were to be humanely told to go and obey. He had yet
to learn if marriage was destroyed ipso facto by the adul-
btearnyd of
buthtah have
hwenuesabsaefldd t;o
neverthelesshowbe coull they say to the wife,
"You married to your adulterous hus-
band,
compel you to live with him."
There was this difference between his mode of construing
Scripture and the Attorney-General's—that be (Mr.
Gladstone) did not ask the house to stand upon any ar-
gument, ingenious or not ingenious, he might construct
from any tsxt. The lights of history, the records of an-
tiquity, the lives of those who followed our blessed Lord
had immense in his view, in determining the
trueseeof weight,scriptual authority. The hon. and !earned
member for Dundalk had given his construction of the
scriptural authority, which it was difficult to answer
(though
heh
hon. and learned friend the
Attorney-General
anticipated, quoted the Council of
Trent.) With regard to the main point in the case, they
had with them the authority of his hon. and learned
ednoht' had anticipated, his
friend the Attorney-General--and he was a host in him-
self. Those who proved the lax interpretations from
Scripture on the verse of St. Matthew, the Attorney-
General threw overboard. He (Mr. Gladstone) would,
however, venture to point out this, that if they took tire
text of St. Matthew as giving a license of marriage
after adultery, they placed St. Matthew b conflict
on the point with the other Evangelists and St.
Paul. The Gospel of St. Matthew was written for
the Jews, and probably in Hebrew • the Gospels of
St. Mark and St. Luke were written for foreigners and
Gentiles. There was no reason for saying that the Gos-
pel of St. Matthew was known to the Gentiles, and yet
according to that and the doctrine of the 'non, member
for Hertford, this essential and vital point in the Chris-
tian law of marriage—whether it might be dissolved fur
adultery—a most important matter in the application
of Christianity into the disordered, society of Rome, when
the relations of the sexes waSiitiost dissolute, was kept
a secret from them for many generations, and never pro-
claimed to them—but on the understanding of the Attor-
ney-General as to Mark_ that it was not mentioned then
because they addressed the Jews, who punished it
criminally, they had St. Matthew in harmony with St.
Mark and St. Luke, who addressed the Gentile, and for
whom the law, as addressed to the Jews, would have
had no meaning. The member for Herts said tbat the
punishment of death was not inflicted by the Jewish
law except the parties were discovered in flagrante de-
licto. The hon, member was the first that had made
that discovery. If ho would look to the chapter of
Deuteronomy touching upon adultery, he would see
that the punishment of death was to be inflicted on the
incontinence not merely of a married person, but of one
even who was betrothed. History, historical testimony,
and the primitive and early testimony of the Christian
church, was vital in this case. He therefore humbly
propounded this as the true construction of the verse of
St. Matthew. Our Lord was speaking to the Jews, and
as the Jewish law provided the punishment of death in
case of adultery, it was impossible the verse could
refer to re-marriage during the life of the parties.
With regard to history, he made this proposition
bolily, that for the first 300 years we had not a shred or
vestige of divorce with re-marriage for any cause what-
ever. The tendency of the early church was to forbid,
to prohibit second marriages in all cause whatever. This
was clear from all the early writers. But they lied
higher authority than writers ; they had the law of the
church ; they had the Christian code and the apostolic
canons. The apostolic canons, which were the law of
the church, said if a layman divorce his wife and marry
another, or marry a wife divorced by another, let him be
separated from the church. There was one exception in
the writers of the early church, Origen, who expressed
an opinion which was the first sign of a greater laxity,
that the innocent husband whose wife was divorced fur
adultery might be perenitted to re-marry. After the
three first centuries of Christianity they began to find a
change ; and in the writings of Lactantius it was hid
down that the innoce et husband of a wife divorced for
adultery might re-m any, When the Early Christians
'
were'an isolated 9-;d self-geverned society, marriage
was held to be ie,dissolubje; tot when they mixed with
the heathen o c
cer-
tain txtert la;
°s its mark on the la
-es of Christianity—
not suit f .
adstie societyaround
to effect ffect it them,
liftbut to lower its tone.
to a s
that society
Which of the chrietian churches e”tt the meet powerful

—the eastern or the western ! Undoubtedly, 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 ling 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 be must thank his hon. and learned friend for
the gratitude he had expressed on account of his (Mr.
Gladstone's) 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 " rthaicus, abnorrnis sapiens"—
(laughter)—and if he was entitled to take ranee among
the "subtilissimi docti," he could only say that to no
period of his life was ho able to attribute his improve-
ment in that art of subtlety, but to that in which he was
for two or three years most closely associated with his
hon, and learned friend. (Laughter.) His hon. and
learned friend had spoken of the principles of the Re-
formation, and he had read a passage which the house
understood was quoted from the Reformatio Legum.
But it was not quoted from that work, The Reformatio
Legum was the first that really opened the fleceigates,
and let in divorce wholesale, and he was sure that when
the house found what was establi-hed on the authority of
the Refornatio 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, Although 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 offence. His hon. and learned friend was desirous
of founding his bill on the Protestant principles 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 opi-
nion of Archbishop Crammer, formed as it was in diffi-
cult and fluctuating times, was to govern opinions at
this time of day, was a proposition so extravagant that
it ought not to be pressed upon them. His 'hon. and
learned friend had 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 he said that when
the Protestant churches all went together they could not
possibly be wrong. (Rear, 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 bad not gone together ;
l not one. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) His hon. and
learned friend said that by the 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
Foijambe 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 matrimordi," and therefore it
was to be inferred that there were divorces "a vincelo
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 naive. 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 showed 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 question 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 beiieve 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 have done more to destroy
the union of the church than if he had voted with the
hon. member for Sheffield on every division against
every regium donum, or every grant for ministers'
money. He protested against such a limitation of con-
science, and he would assert that if they and the laity
were 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
6 to be cut and carved at the wish and pleasure of his noble
and learned friend or of any majority of that house what.
i ever. He did not deny the high functions of the House
of Commans. 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
I principles of law or religion permitted them to do any-
thing in the way of remodelling groat 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
slow or rapid. God grant that it might be slow. lie
did not exactly understand the significancy of the quo-
tation of his hon. and learned friend when he said,
" Iliacos 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
country. (Laughter) He owned that he did not take
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 in
any other ; and as regarded another evil of that close—
namely, incontinence before marriage, it was so preva-
lent both in town and country as ter humble Us to the
dust when we considered with how little strictness our
Christian obligations were observed. But there was a
bright side,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•
plorable laxity of chastity before marriage, coupled with
strictness after niarriaee, that was a fact which required
explanation, and an explanation of it might be found in
the known indissolubility of inarriaae by the law cf Eng-
land—(bear)—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
deelaring that he would resist this measure, because he
believed it was not only retrograde in its character, but
full of dangerous consequences to our social system ;
doubtful au 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 wish 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 be did, that exercitations on
doubtful passages of Scripture tended rather to weaken
than to establish the authority of the Scriptures. He
had 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 lecislation 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 had arrives when, a bill 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 understand the question, and
that he bad received a petition from Cornwall founded on
the supposition that a law was about to he passed under
which divorces might be granted if people should
quarrel. (Laughter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—It was not a petition.
Sir G. GREY—Then it was a letter from some cor-
respondent of the right hon, gentleman, who must have
greatly enlightened him as to the facts of the case. If
the correspondents of his right hon. friend entertained
these absurd views, he should deeply have regretted the
carrying of tho proposition which would have prevented
this discussion, which he trusted would dispel such an
absurd illusion. (Ilear.) He had listened to the greater
part of the speech of his right bon. friend with tire 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. Nov, he was rather surprised
to hear such arguments 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, consisting of gentlemen of great learning
and experience, to inquire into the law of divorce, and
the mode in which divorces could be obtained. That corm
mission proceeded on the notoriout fact that divorcee
were attainable—that the law and practice of Psrtiarneet
sanctioned divorces—and their duty was to inquire and
suggest the method by which that end could to attain, d.
The report of that commission was presentel in 1853,
and in 1854 Lord Aberdeen's • Government, of which
his right hon. friend was a distinguished member, in-
troduced a bill on the subject. (Hear, hear.) That bill
—which was presented to the House of Lords by the
then Lord Chancellor was entitled, " A Bill to transfer
the jurisdiction in matrimonial causes to the Court of

Chancery and to establish a Court of Divorce." That i
bill was read a second sirne end committed, and was I
abandoned in the middle of July, Lot becauss it was
toe late to proceed with it, but because the testamen-
tary jurisdiction could not be carried al erg is ith it ,
That bid was identical in its prineipleS and in its most •
important provisions with the bill now under dhcussion.
That bill proposed to establish a court of divorce, and
provided that certain facts being eetablished, 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 ell
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 gored 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
iniroducti in of such a bill. His present convictions
could only be of recent date, for he was pursuing a
course diametrically opposite to that which he 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 greet in•
novation on the law of marriage and divorce, and that
divorcee would be obtained in cases in which they were
not now granted. The noble lord the member for Leices-
tershire (Lord J. Manner.) took a most exaggerated view
of the case, 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 follow in this country, forgetting
that the law of divorce under the present bill would be
essentially different. His right hon. friend had im-
pugned the statement of his hon. and learned friend (the
Attorney-General), that the object of the bill was to give
a legislative form to what had 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 indissoluble; 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 legislature had constituted itself into a court
for granting divorce It vinculo mistrimonii. Lord Laugh-
borough, whose regulations were referred te the other
night, no doubt laid down strict rules to bind persons
applying tt Parliament for a remedy ; but the House of
Lords, acting judicially in laying down certain rules',
gave a direct sanction to such proceediugs. (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 1 ml, 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 comrnitte 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 proper. 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 now 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-
csedine, and whether it had not constituted itself a court
—Sir J. Stoddart and Dr. Lushington, in their evidence,
stated that the course pursued by .Parliament amounted
to a judicial proceeding, that Parliament had constituted
itself a court, by which, on certain facts 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 theauthori,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, hold
marriage to be indissoluble ; but the Roman Catholics
bad a convenient mode of dispensing with the doctrines of
that church. There wasa supreme authority, called a dis-
pensation—an admission that it was impossible to main-
tain the doctrine unimpaired that marriage was indis-
soluble. The question was not whether there should be a
new law of divorce. The main principle of the bill was
not to alter the grounds or causes on which divorce was
granted, 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. The 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 unable to obtain relief. (Hear.) Having stated
the general principle of the bill, he would just advert to
one of its details, that which allowed parties who were
divorced to marry again after divorce a vinculo had been
granted. He had seen sonic petitions against the bill as
regarded re-marriages. As the question bad 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 iebjection that was made. The objection was
founded on the indissolubility of marriage. They said
in effect that though an innocent husband bad suffoied
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 lend in performing the mar-
riage ceremony
when the innocent husband or his wife
I was married. The right hon. member for Oxfordshire
I shook his head and dissented from that view, but there
was an able exponent elsewhere on this subject, and he
had obtained from the journals of the House of Lords the
identical motion submitted to them embodying the views
of the clergy on this subject, and which was reje -Ited by
a majority of 78 to 26. The clause was as follows :
" Provides', nevertheless, that no clergyman in holy 1
orders in the Church of England shall, after the passing
of this act, be liable to any censure in any court ecclesi- '
aetical or civil, L,r refusing to perform the marriage ser-
vice over any person or persons who, after being mar- 1
ried and divorced, shall seek to be married again during
the lifetime of the husband or wife from whom 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. Ile only wished to put 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. Io all the cases in
which there had been a divorce that obligation of the 1
clergy had existed to the fullest extent as it woultel exist
after this bill was passed. It would be more open to
parties to obtain divorces, and therefore there would ho
probably mere persons who, having been divorced and
wishing to contract a second marriage, would present I
themselves to have the ceremony performed. It was
only a question of degree, and not of principle. Any one i
of these four persons who had their divorce bills now be- I
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
common 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
misconceptions wiih 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 contradistinguiehed from the principles laid down in
the present bill. This bill extended the power of getting
a divorce only to a few, and the measure as far as it went
of a popular measure was totally inefficient and absurd:
He believed that this bill would never he acceptable to
any one who had any respect for the feelings of those
who went against the practices of the adulterer and the
adulteress.

not say that in Prussia divorce was allowed for a grey
number of causes, while by this bill the right of divorce
was confined to cases of adultery. They had, however,
an idustrai in nearer home, much more apposite—that
of Soothed, where the law of divorce went much farther
than was proposed I.)e this hill, although stopping short
of that i.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 divorces.
It appeared that in five years there were only 95 cases.
although the expense was only between 201. and 301.;
and he had yet to learn that the people were more ironic"
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 notes
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 legis-
lative divorce ; for if to grant it at all was contrary to the
Divine law, they would never consent to pass a divorce
biil. Would they go back, and abolish divorce alte'
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 low as it might ; what it did
accomplish was to substitute a judicial legal tribunal for
an anoinalene extraordinary I: gislative one. As it stood.
the bill went sufficiently far, for it was easier to exf:end
the provisions of such a measure than to abridge them. Ile
.
could 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 was
the real objection to the second reading ? As it wag
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, bet 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 bad 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 cOnln 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 bad added nothing to the real ar-
guments, which had been fully borne out by the refire'
sentations of so many of the clergy that marriage wag
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 indissoluble, !I
was prudent to apply that principle to all classes of the
. community ? (Hoer, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE, as one of the commissioners, uPcn
whose report the bill had been founded, expressed hi
intention of giving it his support. Any person mote:
quainted with the laws or history of the country, that
had heard the speech of the right hon. gentleman (MA
Gladstone), would have thought that Parliament we,
about to introduce a bill to unsettle all the sanctities 0e
_
the marriage tie, and to lower the position of wool
belew her present elevated standard, whereas the real
truth was that divorce was not to be granted upon ant
ground except that for which it was now accorded, Of
that this was proposed to be done by one good court°
law, instead of the three courts which were at present
4
entrusted with the grant of divorces. The course ',
beg
divorce a vinculo as prop sed by the bill was extoll
same as that of the present law, and would
of
granted for nothing else tban for adultery on the part of
the wife, and the part of the husband in certain nae.0/
Substantially there was not the slightest atom of nit;
''e
ference between the causes of divorce, or the resol
which were to flow from such divorces, between
ad
bill and the law as it at present stood. . There o',,
nothing, therefore, in the proposal which would faded
lead to such opinions as had been expressed respectil
the widespread demoralisation and profligacy which I
was said would be sanctioned and fostered by the ID°
sure.

Mr. NAPIER bad come to the conclusion 010
adultery wa,, according to Scriptures a ground for thin°
dissolubility of marriage. His opposition, howeveci,
this bill was up'n the point of remarriage.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL briefly replied to t,138
arguments of previous speakers. The hon. member Oita
Surrey had, he said, drawn his arguments from the a
Testament, and had challenged him (the Attorney-Genw-
ral) to produce a case of intermarriage subsequent::
adultery in any of the books from Genesis to Mal
He thought he could find one in which adultery fella;
by murder resulted in intermarriage. (Hear.) But as tab
speech of his right hor. friend the member for 00ri
e
University had, like Aaron's rod, swallowed up all t'h 1
rest, he should content himself with following 10,i'
briefly his right hon. friend's arguments. His 600'3
friend had transcended himself on the prosent occasion
and yet he must vote for this bill unless he wished •
stultify all his own recorded acts and opinions whOlis
cabinet minister in 1853 and 1854. The present bill W„f
the same as that which had received the approbation "
the cabinet in 1854, and which when he (the Attorney
General) attempted to bring in again in 1855, the rig_j
hon. gentleman said was an attempt to make pnlitn
capital, and should not have been tried, except witted
certainty of suceeral. But what had his right hon. frien,
produced on the present occasion, as his crowning argod
ment against the bill ? A book written by an obset
proctor, in an ecclesiastical court in Ireland.
Gladstone No, no.) Why, it was published in Dobl`l
and was no doubt the work of some Roman Cathn',s
proctor. (Laughter )
Mr. GLAD iTONE—The editition from which
quoted was published in Dublin, but it was printed
years after the original publication.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—WeII, we would j
it as having been written and published in London, and
as being worthy of all the commendations of his Ogg,
hon. friend. But what were his facts, which had cf)t
verted the Cabinet Minister of 1854 into the dog°°
denouncer of his own bill in 1855 ?
" Who would not laugh, if such a man there be;
Who would not weep"—
Lel
But he would not finish the quotation. (Laugh-- to
Having replied to Mr. Gladstone's argument ag,.o
the law of divorce not being in agreement
the opinions of the early reformers, the Attornl%
General proceeded to say that this bill contemplate'll,
remedy br adultery when coupled with deserti°A
But he believed the house had heard quite evoult,
of the subject, (Loud and general cries of " Hear, henr,:i
He called upon the house to say whether they woulddeclare that marriage should henceforth be indissoln".o
or whether they would proceed upon the principle $,),10
they had acted upon for so many years, and extend
all classes.

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

THE N EWS FRONI lA.. be
Mr. SPOONER—I wish to asklN theD noble lord 1 4
will inform the house whether he has received
despatches from India ?
Lord PALKERSTON—The despatches have gont°ot4;
the India-house, so we cannot receive them ;
right hon. friend the President of the Board of Coe pd
has some private letters from Calcutta, Bombay, !iv
MAdras. Tne substance of them was given in the l'eaps
graphic despatches which have been received ; no o'o.
of any importance had taken place different to those
nounced in the tel-wraphic despatches. ,
Sir. T. O'BRIEN—May I ask whether Delhi
taken ?
Lord PALMERSTON—At the -receipt of the las
telegraph Delhi had not been taken.
The house adj Jurned at five minutes past two.

LONGEVITY AT FOLKESTONE.—A Miss Ann 000'• (0,
just died at Folkestone, at the advanced age of 1041e*
having lived under five crownel heads.
[ADVERTISEHENT].—HoIIoway's Pills the most p-.sver.
,
ful Antidote to Disease Extant.—Toseph Quinnebto,
Woolbeding, Midhurst, Sussex, expresses his deep co
titude to Professor Holloway for the benefit In 41
derived from the use of his remedies, having 808.'0,
for two years from extreme debility and indiges"%e
caused by a severe cold, disabling him from work ; 0,1
was for some time an inmate of Brighton Hospital efo
Chichester Infirmary, but to little purpose ; he t'btbe
tried Holloway's s, and is a short time they hod
effect of restoring and invigorating the entire syste° et
Sold by all medicine venders tbrouwbout the world;
Professor Holloway's Establishments, 244, Stto
London, and 80, Maiden-lane, New York; by A. Stal7;
Constantinople ; AA. Guidicy, Smyrna ; and E.
I
Malta.

BIRTHS.
OF A SON,
tbe
On the 80th ult., at Cleveland-square, Hyde-par-'
wife of Edmund A. Pontifex, Esq. svg°
On the 30th ult., at Leytonstoue-house, Essex, 00
of T. Fowell Buxton, Esq.
OF A DAUGIITER, r -
WI/

On the 31st ult., at Thurloa-cotta se, Barrington"' e
Brixton, the wife of Mr. F. W. Moore. 0
0
On the 30th ult., at Duppas-hill, Croydon, the wife
Mr. Henry Chasemore.

Tee SOLICITOR-GENERAL entirely agreed with
Mr. Gladstone that the discussion of the religious part
of the question was scarcely 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 subject, 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 for it might find much
valuable information in the repor; of the committee, and
the! clininittee recommended the adoption of the measure
now under the consideration of the house. But assuming
that they satisfied themeelves that there was nothing
c )ntrary to religion in the course they proposed, then
came the practical question with reference to the effect
of the measure 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 ind,gnation at t!)e idea of
introducing a change which, accordn to him, would
produce almost iiniver,,al immorality, lie spoke as
the
measure would dissolve the framework Of society ; rOt-L4 •
and he based his opinion on the result of the facilitating LONDON: Printed and Published by AWED° 0 14°'
of divorces in Germany by the law a that c ,uutry. TI of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tlue Sun Ofticee'ff
noble lord referred to the speech of Baron Gerlach, 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the
16'uowiug, the frequency of divorce in P 1 u6sia ; but he did of Middlesex, Saturday, August 1, 1857.

MA RR I E D.
10100;
On the 30th ult„ at All Soul's Church, St. MarY t
Major W. Henry Larkins, 2,1 Bengal Grenadiers iii;jler
Louisa, the third daughter of Dr. Southey, of 10,
street.

D ee°
At the residence of his eldest eon, at Hellesdoll,,,oo
Norwich, on the 20th ult., William Frederick Aug_:firer,
Delano, Esq., of 10, Eaton-place south, London, T..„.o°'`dioa
of the County Courts of Kent, &c., aged 64, -",,ecierlf
surrounded by his family, by whom he was very ten
laved. T"..
On the 28th ult., in London, the celebrated 131 in
yeller, Lieut. JarQoB Holman, P.N., F.S.A., &c. , I.ool'
On the 30th ult., at 30, Western Villas, Blornfie'("rcir
Paddington, Samuel Jacob Simmonds, of 48, Fen°
street, aged 51.
On the 31st ult., Margaret Mary, only surviviegre
ter of Sir Wm. J. Newton, of 6, Argyll-street, age ,itiare'
On the 30th ult., at 12, Mount-row, Beikeley-o`l
Mr. George Hutchinson, aged 65.