The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-04 00:00:00

gp 92
ji id

riages in cases of adultery. The commissioners made an
elaborate report, and recommended that the custom of
obtaining private acts of Parliament in cases of divorce
a vinculo matrimonii should be abolished, and a court
constituted, in which when the circumstances which
were now required to be proved in order to obtain a
bill of divorce, in their I)rsiships' house, were proved
before that tribunal, it should have power to
grant a divorce a viuculo matrimonii. In pursuance of
the recommendations of that report he prepared the bill
which was introduced into their lordships house, and
which having been read a second time was referred to a
select committee. The select committee had the assist-
ance of several right rev. prelates, and all the law lords,
and several other noble lords, the subject being one not
more for lawyers than laymen, inasmuch as it dealt more
with a social question than, strictlyspeaking. a law re-
-
form.

••1 •
id •• 1

110 - 111

110 i 11
95

114 -- 118
105 ---,7110
65 -- _7O
-10 i

23} -24 i
100 - 102
91 - 10

A noble and learned friend of his made a mo-

27 - 28
21 -- 2iP

tion in the st-lect committee extending the relief of the
bill to married women divorced only a mensa et thoro,
and not a vinculo matrimonii ; so that they should
be enabled to have the duties and benefits of single
persons ; and a clause was introduced to enable mar-
ried women separated from their husbands by a decree
of the Ecclesiastical Court, but not divorced a vinculo
matrimonii, to have the privilege of single persons ;
so that they might trade, preventing their husbands
from returning to them and taking possession of any
property they might acquire. That thus° was much
discussed, but eventually adopted by the committee and
by the house. The bill enacted that a court should be
constituted, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the two
Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, and the Dean of the
Arches, an ecclesiastical judge, who would be called the
ordinary judge, and would sit for the ordinary purposee
of the court; that is, that he should have power to deal
with all matters, except divorces a vinculo matrimonii,

21 - 31

just as the Ecclesiastical Court did now ;but in all cases
of divorces a vinculo matrimonii, and where it was sought
to enable the parties to marry again, three of the judges
of the court, of whom the Dean of the Arches was to be
one, would be necessary to constitute the tribunal. The
course of proceeding' would be, that the witnesses would
be examined orally, and the court would have power to
send issues to be tried by juries. The judge ordinary,
therefore, would have all the powers now exercised
by the judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, and he, with
other members of the court now to be constituted,
would have the power now exercised by their lord-
ships of granting a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and
enabling the parties to marry again. That was the bill
as he now proposed to introduce it, except with a diffe-
rence which he would proceed to state. When the bill
was before their lordships, after it had returned from the
select committee, a right rev, prelate, the Bishop of Ox-
ford, moved a proviso, which was carried, that in cases
(f divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, though the parties
should be at liberty to marry again, yet that the adul-
terer hold not be able to marry the adulteress. Their
lordships cal:ted that proviso almost by acclamation, but
as he (the Lord Chancellor) was now introducing a bill
in which be was res-eonsible for what the Government
thought best to be dons, he had left out that priviso,
leaving it to their lordships to insert it if they thought fit.
He objected to it because it infiMted agreat injury on the
woman, and in ordinary cases would be a great boon to
the adulterer ; and in those cases in which a man of hon-
our might be desirous of making all the reparation in his
power to a woman he had injured, that clause entirely re-
lieved, or rather prevented, him from doing so. There was
another reason why it was not convenient that this proviso
siasuld be inserted in the bill. In the private acts in
their lordships' house for the dissolution of marriages
such a proviso was always introduced, although it was
well known that it was universally and invariably struck
out in the other house. What reason, then, was there
to suppose that such a provision would be allowed to re-
main in a general bill, when it was regularly struck out
by the other house in all particular private bills Tout
was one of the changes he proposed to make in the bill
as it passed their lordships last year. There was another
clause which he had introduced into the present bill,
which he could not but think most desirable, although
he bad met with no encouragement from their lordships
on the subject when he introduced it a fortnight ago; be
meant that which legalised by enactment deeds of separa-
tion between husband and wife. Such deeds had been
heia to be valid by the courts, and Lord Cottenham on
one occ:ssion interfered, by injunction, to restrain a per-
,party to a deed of this kind from taking
son who wh'g a
ecclesiastical court. He was aware that
proceedings in he
the deeds in questean did not state that the persons who
were parties to theme were separated ; and his noble and
learned friend, the Cis.
of J ustice, had said that their pro-
visions were carried out .4.1. v means of trustees. But if
here was no dcult
persons agreed to live separi:
ly, tom such a deed difficulty
in finding trustees by means of sv.l'
an agreement
be entered into • and it was substants:ll Y
ovenanted on
between husband and wife : for some one
the deed.
behalf of each of them to abide by the terms o:
He proposed that, without this complicated macu.:nerYA
it should be lawful for persons to make such a deed, as.:'
registering it would make it valid in any of our courts.
It was an old proverb that if you could not get people
to conform to the law the law must conform to usage ;
these deeds were now a practice, and he did not see why
that should not be done directly which was already done
indirectly. These were the only two differences between
this bill and that of last year • and, having stated so
much, he should content himself with moving the second
reading of this bill.
Lord LYNDHURST was satisfied of the justice of
this bill. The law, as it stood now, was only available
to the wealthy. Who but a rich husband could sustain
an action for divorce ? Was not this a crying injustice ?
In Scotland the law extended a remedy to the poor as
well as the rich. Why should not an Englishman enjoy
the same privileges He wished an alteration in the
measure, that a woman when abandoned by her husband
for some years should be ipso facto entitled to a divorce a
meusa et thoro. He bad heard pitiable details of the
position of many miserable women under such circum-
stances. Would their lordships refuse them both mercy
and justice 1 The principle of voluntary separation was

4j x d
1

q I a

141 5

II '

68 7i 8

one he objected to. It ought not to be facilitated. The
law bad never recognised it. True that the Court of
Chancery had enforced agreements for maintenance, but
that practice had been brought, about by error and de-
pended on custom. The courts regarded such contracts
as contrary to the policy of the law, which was to pro-
tect men in the discharge of their duties, not assist them
in avoiding them. Let theirlordships then refuse to make
law what the law refused to sanction—what was, in fact,
in direct opposition to the law of marriage.
. The Bishop of EXETER said a bill such as that before
their lordships ought to carry justice to all classes. Such
was not the case. Its jurisdiction was exclusive. The
court sat in Westminster. How could a poor Cornish
husband come there for redress ! If it was not to be a
mockery the court must be carried down into the coun-
try. The rights of the people were interfered with. The
ecclesiastical law was to be administered by this West-
minster court, but only one of the judges was an ecclesi-
astical judge. All the others were to be of the common
law and equity bar. The rd gion as well as the rights of
the people were attacked. The law of divorce was the
law of the Chinch of Rome—the unreformed Church of
Rome. The question was surrounded by difficulties.
Constantine first gave to the husband a power of di-
vorce from an adulterous wi'e, but he refused it to
the wife for adultery by the husband, unless accom-
panied by greatly aggravat-d circumstances. This
state of things Tested for 120 years. It was the
depraved Church of Rome that a ided the divorce a
mensa et th.oro. It was now proposed to infl.ct this cor-
rupt system on the Church of Englsnd. He was sorry
to see that the Lord Chancell it had no;, abolished the
action for trim. con., but be would be satisfied with a
separate act for that purpose, and the making adultery a
misdemeanour, the criminal being also amerced in the
costs of the prosecution. The bid ought not to pass in
the present shape. They must have a committee of
learned men to te'l them what was the divine law, and
what had been the law of the Church in the best ages on
this subject. Meanwhile, he should move that the bill
be read that day three months.
Lord ST. LEONARDS supported the bill. The pro-
posed court would be open to rich and poor. But the very
evidence and necessities of a divorce case precluded the
cheapness of divorce. Did the Bishop of Exeter desire
a roving commission of divorce, travelling through
the country, and inviting people to be divorced
He denied that the House of Lords was open to the rich
and not to the poor. He appealed to the manner in

. .
which divorce cases were conducted. He did n think
throwing open the courts would lead to a greater num-
ber of applications for divorce. He was glad the bill
contained no clause impeding the marriage of adulterous
parties. It would have protected the mean and base-
minded in avoiding the only reparation in their power to
the women they bad injured. He hoped erica. con.
actions would be abolished by this bill, and that the
course of proceeding would be by indictment and penalty.
The wife and the adulterer should be brought before the
judge, and both should be heard. At present the wife
had no place before the court, though; the verdict affected
her honour and the happiness of her future life. With
regard to absence or desertion being a plea for se-
paration, he should oppose the clause, with the pro-
viso that the wife should be protected from the
claims of the returning husband on the property
she might have got together in his absence. The
clause which allowed persons to separate by deed, and a
woman t deal with her person as she would with an acre
of land, he would oppose. As regarded the Court of
Chancery, he trusted that if the bill were read a second
time, the Lord Chancellor would strike out everything
that pertained to that court, which all Englishmen re-
garded with a wholesome horror.
The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill, and would
vote against it in a case of a division. Hitherto the law
had sought to surround marriage with a solemn protec-
tion. This bill went to facilitate its dissolution. For-
merly divorce proceeded from sin—now it was to be from
sufferance. Now parties who had been separated were re-
garded as holding a doubtful position—now they were
invited to separate by a court, which affirmed their posi-
tion by its solemn sanction. There was now to be alaw to
unmarry innocently as before, to marry. He should vote
that this law, which if passed would be onlya delusion,
should be read that day three months. There were to be
proceedings in forma pauperis To what would this
tenu ? Actions for crini. con. were not abolished by this
act. It might be said that a clause to this effect would
be afterwards added, but the principle of the bill ought
to appear on the face of it. Then, too, what would fo-
reigners think of this law ? In Prussia, France, Austria,

and other countries, voluntaly separation was prohibited,

He contemned the opinion of ecclesiastical lawyers on
these points ; they coutemplated marriagP, professioo-

ally, only as leading to adulrery. The bull, in hii opi-
nion, had a tendency to lower the 'anctity of the mar-
riage obligation, and therefore he begged their lordships

to vote aiainst it.

Lord WENSLEYDALE supported the bill. He could
not see why, if necessary, even the county courts should
not grant divorces to the poorer classes.
Lord DERBY said Lord Wensleydale's speech told
against the bill he intended to support. He had come
down to the house to vote for the second reading,
but what had been said somewhat perplexdd his mind.
In the first place be found the only two bishops present

protesting against the principle of the bill. He anim-
adverted
on the non-attendance of the spiritual peers,
whose advice and assistance were certainly due to the
house on a question fraught with such interest to the
Church. On a recent political question 23 of the right
reverend prelates had managed to be present, yet this
question, one that emphatically demanded their care,
was to be argued in their absence. So much for the
Church. As regarded the Law, he found Lord Wensley-
dale throwing his vote into one side and his atgument
into another. He could not agree with the reverend
prelate, that marrriairo was indissoluble by law.
The Bishop of OXFORD denied having made any ,
such assertion.

The Bishop of EXETER said that his proposition
was that in certain cases a marriage could be dissolved
by 14w.
The Earl of DERBY said that, such being tha case
(the bishops not assenting), the Legislature was bound
to lay down explicitly what were the justifiable causes

and circumstances for divorce, and to refer them to the
highest possible tribunal for judgment. He agreed, then,
with the bill so far as it laid down that the marriage tie
should be dissolved on proved adultery, and provided a
higher tribunal for the purpose. He wanted provision
made against crim. con. actions, and a penalty under
criminal prosecutions inflicted on the adulterer. He
would have the bill made equally to apply to rich and
poor. We were very severe, and justly so, in punish-
ing crimes of violence and robbery. Let their lordships
beware lest the people should say that they shrunk from
severely punishing crimes they were themselves exposed
to the temptation of committing. Looking to the intro-
duction of these clauses, he should vote for the second
reading of the bill.
Earl GREY' would vote against the bill, not because
he did not think the present system disgraceful, but
because the bill did not remedy it sufficiently. The law
was to be equal to the poor as to the rich, and yet they
began with a tribunal consisting of a Lord Chancel'or, a
Dean of Arches, and three Chief Justices ! Could such
a court deal with the cases of poor people ? What fees,
and forms, and processes did these names shadow forth ?
What a machinery was this to hold out to the poor!
The experiment would be useless—the system would not
hold. _ _

Lord REDESDALE deprecated all motions on the
subject. The bill would bring desolation and misery to
many an English hearth.
The LORD CHANCELLOR replied. He trusted
that actions for trim. con. being no longer necessary as
preliminary processes to divorce, would of themselves
cease. If the adulterer were tried fur misdemeanour,
were they to try the woman also I What was the
punishment to be ? A fine would be disregarded by
those who could pay—and in the case of those who
could not—the punishment would raise up an inequalay
between rich and poor. As to the Bishop of Oxford's
proviso, it went to take away a great punishment on the
man, be being morally compelled to marry the woman,
and so become banished from society. He hoped for a
second reading of the bill that it might be considered
and improved, and an end be thereby put to the anoma-
lous state of the law as at present existing.

The House divided—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority
- _

The bill was read a-second time, and the house, after
passing the Chief Constables Bill and the Public Health
Bill through committee, and a resolution that no private
bill should be read a second time after the 3d of July,
adjourned at ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)
INCOME TAX.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented 21 petitions praying for
the abolition of the income tax on incomes of 1501. and
under.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was brought in and read a first time.
EMIGRATION.
On the motion of Viscount GODERICII, the follow-
ing returns were ordered :—Returns showing the amount
of money at the disposal of the Emigratiou Commission-
ers, for emigration to the Australian Colonies, in each of
the last ten years, the amount expended, and the num-
ber of emigrants sent out in each year ; and the average
cost per statute adult ; of the number of applications for
passages now in the Commission-office, the amount of
unappropriated balance in their bands, and the probable
number of statute adults for whom that balance will pro-
vide; of the number of persons connected with the building
trades sent out during the last six months, and the pro-
portion which they bear to other emigrants during the
same period ; and, of the regulations and conditions
under which passages are granted.
EDUCATION.

Mr. W. EWART gave notice that he should, on an
early day, move to bring in a bill making it compulsory
`,r children under a certain age employed in factories to
be mowed a certain number of hours each day for edu
cation.

PERSIA.
Mr. GLA.nsTONE asked the President of the Board
of Control whether .- :lie financial year," in his letter of
the 9th day of December lase, had the same meaning as
"the ensuing financial year," in Charles Trevelyan's
letter of the 2d day of December last ; and if not, by
whose authority the change was made'? Whether any
estimate of the charge of the Persian war for the ensu-
ing financial year had been presented by the East 1:::Zia
Company to her Majesty's Government ; and, if B'l
at what date it- was thus presented, and when 1
would be laid on the table of this house,
and whether any supplies or munitions of czar the Pr"-
perty of her Majesty, have been despatched from
tthhise
country, or from any British possession, 1u aid
1 expedition ;:gainst Persia ?
g d to the first
1 Mr. V. SMITH said that
C, T el 14
1 question the financial year in thelv
exactly the same as that of Sir C. r
lt
h letter
erye_yarranefe,rredi3ytocizass.

ing it, one word, by a clerical error, was omitted,
but the letter, on the face of it,
showed it
Ito be so. With regard to the second question
he had to state that such an estimate had been
received and reached the Board of Control on the 7th
February, and that it was transmitted to the Treasury
on the 9th. It bad not yet been examined or acknow-
ledged, and it was not his intention to present the esti-
mate to the house, because it was not desirable cr ex-
pedient to do so in its present state, the estimate being
formed on rough calculations. The calculations were
formed on what he hoped would be found to be an
erroneous basis, namely, that the Persian War
would last till December, 1857, but even were it
likely to be so protracted, be Should object to the produc-
tion of the estimates, because there were items and
things mentioned in it that ought not to he made known
to an enemy. He hoped, therefore, that the house
Iwould not enforce its production. His answer to the
third question was, that no Ruoplies or munitions of war,
belonging to her Majesty, bad been de ;patched from this
country or from any Britian possession, in aid of the ex-
pedition against Persia.

LAND TRANSPORT CORPS.

Mr. T. DUNCO MBE asked the Under Secretary, for

War whe4 tie revised c,py of the army regulatioos and
orders would he ready fa' liQtrioutionior sale ; also what
was the date of to mita or eut'-ioritv, a: ,d o wholh it
was sent and t,ddre,fe n ch th.• disb.tnri rut nt •f
the La-o 1 Transp r.. C rls took rit,ce, as stated ley
him on Friday las:, and wlo:tll..r t.t,ere was any otkction
to lay mom the tabe a c.,,,y of such ,rier or authority!
Mr. PEEL said that ,t was intenled to apply the new
regulations to artillery and engineering corps, as welt as
the other portions of the service. The leguiawins were
ready, except that referring to the einharkati,di ol troops.
He expected they would soon be ready. With regard
to the Land Transp-rt Corps, the rigiit hon. gentleman
gave a similar answer to that he gave in artenio last
week.