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

spent the rock upon which Commodore Keppers ship
had been lost, and from that report he thought that in
all probabili y C_mmldore Keppel would be acquitted
by the court mhr ial.

The motion for the adjournment to Munday was then
agreed to.

LEITRIM ELECTION•

The SPEAKER informed the house that he had re-
ceived a letter from Mr. Coppock, stating that it was
not intended to proceed with the petition against the
return for this county.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
Upon the order for the second reading of this bill
being read,
Mr. HENLEY, in rising to move that the order be
postponed until that day month, said that it was not his
intention to raise any question upon the principles of the
bill, but to apply himself only to those matters which
would show that by adopting his resolution the conve-
nience of the house and the advantage of the public
would be secured. The house would recollect that, as
the law at present stood, persons who required a disso-
lution of marriage were obliged to go through three dis-
tinct operations, one proceeded with in the ecclesiastical
court, a second in a court of common law, and the third
being obtained from the House of Lords by way of pri-
vilege. Such being the state of the law, the Govern-
ment, in 1853, issued a commission to inquire into the
present state of the law of divorce a vinculo matrimonii.
' The commissioners met, and agreed to resolutions. In
the following year legislation commenced in the House
of Lords. A bill was embodied in the house, and passed;
whether it was ever read in the House of Commons or
not he did not know. Nothing, however, came of it, and
so the matter rested until the present year, when the bill
which hon. members were asked to consider was intro-
duced, and passed through the House of Lords. It was
not necessary for him to call attention to the gravity of
this question—it was one of the greatest importance, not
only on account of the number of persons directly coming
under its influence, but because what was done upon it
might tend to weaken the solemnity and firmness of the
marriage tie throughout the length and breadth of this
land. With the view of showing how impressions had
varied on the subject, he would proceed to contrast the
recommendations of the commissioners and the two
bills which had been agreed to by the other house with
each other. In the first place, the report of the com-
missioners recommended as a tribunal for the considers
tion of matrimonial cause+ a court consisting of three
permanent judges. In 1854 it was proposed to throw
this matter upon the Court of Chancery. The present
bill proposed the creation of a new court, consisting of
the Lord Chancellor, the two Lord Chief Justices, and
the Lord Chief Baron, and the judge of tine Court of
Probate, of whom three were to be a quorum. With
regard to the subject of appeal, the commissioners re-
commended a general appeal to the House of Lords. Ia
the measure of 1854 the appeal was to be similar to the
appeals from the Court of Chancery, and therefore with
an ultimate appeal to the Lords. At present it was pro-
posed that there should be no appeal on questions of
fact, but upon questions of law an appeal was given to
the House of Lords. Again, the commissioners, after
considerable deliberation, carne to the conclusion that
questions of fact should be left to the judges, and that a
jury should ant be summoned. In 1851 the House of
Lords was still of opinion that there should be no jury.
When the present bill was first brought forward, there
was to be a jury—not of right in every case, but only
where, in the discretion of the judge, it was thought fit
to summon one. During the discussion of the subject the
mind of the house underwent a change ; and as the bill
came down, it gave a jury as a matter of right. The
house would see from this the diversity of opinion which
had prevailed on this subject ; and in the face of that
diversity he would ask hon. gentlemen whether at the
period of the session at which they had arrived it was
at all likely that the bill could receive that attention
which its gravity demanded ? The diversity of view
to which lee had just referred only affected the
subject of jurisdiction ; he would proceed to show that
the same state of things existed with regard to the
subject to be adjudicated upon. The bill dealt not
only with the subject of divorce a vinculo matri-
monii, but also with what it was pleased to call
judicial separation a state of things better de-
scribed as divorce a mensa et thoro. The commissioners
thought that divorce a mensa et thoro should follow
gross cruelty, conjugal infidelity, and wilful desertion,
the latter also being provided for in the alternative by a
decree for alimony. In 1854, desertion for three years
was made one of tne grounds of this divorce. Then carne
the bill of this year, which fixed tha period of desertion
at two years. The bill of 1857 also contained a very
curious provision, the practical results of which he
thought would be more awkward than its proposers
seemed to imagine. Tnis bill gave the wife, upon deser-
tion by the husband, the right to her earnings as against
him and his creditors. Tois right was to be secured by
the decision of one magistrate, from whom an appeal
wonld lay to two. Both the oide—that of 1857 as well
as that of 1854—fixed the ground of diveroe a vincino
if applied for by the husband upon adultery only. With
regard to the wife, the commissioners recommended that
this species of divorce should be granted to the wife in
cases of " aggravated enormity "—a phrase which they
explained as including incest and bigamy. The measure
of 1854, on its introduction, confined the remedy as re-
garded women to the same grounds as those fixed by the
commissioners, and they increased the grounds of divorce
so that they included incestuous adultery, unnatural
offences, or attempts to commit them, while they
omitted bigamy. The measure of 1857 gave the right
of divorce to the woman in the following cases :-Ist
Incestuous adultery; 21. Bigamy; 3d. Adultery, with
gross cruelty ; and 4th, Adultery. with desertion for
two years. Here were most important variations; and
aga n, as regarded these, he woul 1 ask the house if at
this time of the year so important a matter, upon which
so many opinions might , after great deliberation, be
formed, could be considered with any good result? He
would text refer to a question upon which the commis-
sienersgave no opiaioo, the action of trim. con. As the
present bill came down to them the action was abolished,
but in getting at this result great uncertainty of purpose
had been abown. At first the action was to be retained,
but to be brought after instead of before the divorce; then
it was proposed to make criminal conversation a misdemea-
nour ; ultimately a fine was propose I and the action
abolished. Now he would beg to call the attention of
the house to the fact that, as be had already contended,
there were but few cases coming within the scope of this
bill. Taking the average of the years from 1834 to the
present time, he found that the number of cases of di-
vorce a vinculo averaged only three per year. He had
thus called the attention of the house to the position in
which the matter stood. He could get no information as
to the present average of suits, but by the report pub-
Hebei 1332 he found that the whole number of causes in
all the courts of England for 1827.23-29 was 101, and of
that number there were 16 in the Arches C suet of Lon-
don, and 42 in the Coneistory Court ; that was to nay
58 altogether in London, and 43 in the country; so that
by the bill 4-sths of the jurisdiction would be swept
away and no remedy provided for the people. He had
now stated the reasons which induced him to come to
the conclusion that if Government persisted in going on
with this bill, there must be lengtheeed discussion in
committee on the points he had mentioned. Petitions
had been presented signed by 6;000 clergymen, so that
it was quite clear that the interest taken in the subj ct
was very great, and in the subject was very great, and
if the discussion should be iudecently cut short by the
termination of the session, they ran the risk not only
of shocking the high feeling of the country, but of finish-
ing with a crude and ill-digested measure. Toe Govern-
ment could, he feltnhave no interest in the matter except
to produce a good bill ; there were very few parties that
could be iejared by delay, while much good might result
from their proceeding with circumspection. On all these
grounds, he implored the Government to acquiesce in
his motion, that the second reading be postponed for
one month.
Sir G. GREY thought the course taken by the right
hon. gentleman most unusual and inconvenient. When
the order of the day was read, the Attorney-Ceeneral
rose (14-r. RENLET: I did not see him)—Yes, he rose to
propose the second reading, intending to make a complete
statement, not only of the principles of the bill, but
of the grounds upon which the Government asked for is
second reading thiisessioe.But the right hon. gentleman
interposed with is motion which was equivalent to put-
ting it off for another session, and would be the same in
result as the motion of the hon. and learned member for
Dundalk, from identity in opinion with whom the right
hon. gentleman endeavoured to guard himself. The right
hen. gentleman avoided touching on the princir le of the
bill, but he had done what was still more objectionable,
leaving his opinion as to principle uncertain while be Ca-
tered into all the details, which could only properly be
discussed in committee. He could now address hirnee

to the objections of the right hon gentleman, the first of
which was the most extraordinary he had ever heard.
The right hon. gentleman asked them not hastily to le-
i gislate on a subject of gravity and importance, as if this
were the first time the sufiject had been under discussion,
and that they were about to legislate without previous
inquiry. But the right hon. gentleman himself admitted
that there had been repeated inquiries, that the bill had
been several times before Parliament, that it had under-
gone deliberate investigation, and that some improve-
ment had resulted in matters of detail. He thought that,
on the right hon. gentleman's own shoeing, they were
in full possession of the provisions of the bill, and there-
fore quite in a condition to invite the House of Commons
to give its assent to the principle by passing the second
reading, while, if they postponed it, the right hen. gen-
tleman who now urged that three measures had already
been rejected, would come back next session with a
stronger argument, as he would then be able to add a
fourth to the list. The other objection was that they were
near the end of the session. He did not think it signified
at what period of the year a subject was considered, pro
vided there was a sufficient attendance of members, and,
without appealing to that particular period of the even-
ing at which the benches were usually thin—(a laugh)
—he thought that the general attendance just now had
nothing in it that indicated a want of interest in the
busine-s of legislation. The attendance recently had
been as good as at any former period of the session, and
the division lists showed a very fair average of members.
Her Majesty's Government had deemed it their duty to
propose this bill to Parliament, it had received the
deliberate attention of the other house, and it would be
a matter of deep regret it, in consequence of the reason
assigned by the right hor. gentleman, the ecandak
which every one confe=sed, should be perpetuated for
another year. (Hear.) They, (the Government) earnestly
hoped that the right hon. gentleman would allow the
bill to be read a second time. Let them have the prin-
c.pal fairly before the house, and let them not have a
discussion which, at that moment, must be incomplete.
He hoped that the house would read the bill a second
time, and proceed with the details, so as that a remedy
might be applied to the scandals existing in the law, and
that the present opportunity might nut be lost of eMet-

ng a reformation which on all hands was most earnestly
desired.

Mr. GLADSTONE—My right hon. friend does not,
t appears, feel the force of the objections which have
been urged by the right hon. member for Oxfordshire.
He thinks it impossible that the scandals in the existing
marriage law should be continued for another year, but
I hardly know to what scandals my right hon. friend
alludes. If he speaks of the defective state of our law
with re3pect to the protection of wives and husbands
respectively as to their earnings in case of separation, I
admit the scandal, but tbat scandal requires a different.
remedy, and is not, as I conceive, affected by the motion
of the right hon. mewls it for Oxfordshire. If the Govern.
ment really aims at doing what the people of this coun-
try really do desire, namely, obtaining better protection
for themselves and their families in case of the miscon-
duct of husband or wife respectively, then, I say, let my
right hon. friend make us that offer—let him propose
the simple, easy portion of his enactments having refer-
ence to this subject, and the scandals of the marriage
law in England may all be remedied during the present
session without difficulty. That portion of the subjen
would not lead us to the rocks and shoals and quick-
sands which encompass the rest of the measure. But
my right hon. friend bad perhaps in view another de-
scription of scandal, which I admit exists, although its
importance has been enormously exaggerated, namely,
the scandal that persons possessed of a certain amount
of property can get a dissolution of marriage, while nn-
body else oan. This is a scandal—l do deny not it—(hear,
hear)—which deserves the grave consideration of the
house as to what manner it may dealt with ; but surely
there is no overpowering necessity for dealing with it at
the present moment. (Hear, hear.) The necessity does
not arise in the recess, because it relates to Acts of Par-
liament, and Parliament may very well consider in ano-
ther session what is to be done with the law of marriage ;
but I do hope that my right hon. friend will notsay that
this scandal constitutes a matter of very grave public
importance. The course taken by the right bon. mem-
ber for Oxfordshire is in my opinion a most legitimate
course. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says
that he feels in his own mind a real difficulty as to what
is to be done in this matter. He does not appear t
deny that the whole question of the state of the law of
marriage may justify the consideration of Parliament,
but my rigut hon. friend, suspecting the right hon. gen-
tleman of a latent determination to oppose everything
that may be proposed, puts on his motion a construction
it was not intended to bear. Now, is it not a possible
state of things that there may be many persons
in this house who do feel a difficulty as to the course that
ought to be taken in this matter ? (Hear.) We must
all be aware that it would be impossible to exaggerate
the difficulties of the case, and are we to be so presump-
tuous as to think that in a moment we can see our way
through these difficulties, or be so debased in our notion,
of public duty, as to think it justifiable to deal with this
great and sacred snbject, in any of the ordinary modes
of Parliamentary operation ? There is one consolation
in approaching this subject, and that is that it has no
connection with the existence of any Government, or the
principles of any party. It is a matter in respect to which
there are obligations affecting us in common as Chris-
tians and legislators, and which have no connection with
political views or obligations, and therefore I trust that
my right hon. friend will not ascribe views which he
himself disclaims to the right hon. member for Oxford-
shire. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman wishes for time
to determine on his course, but my right hon. friend says,
" No, you must vote without consideration." I protest
against that mode of argument, which, coming from so
high an authority as the Secretary of State, brings the
question out of the atmosphere in which it ought to he
discussed, into the ordinary foul and fetid atmosphere of
political and party motive. (Hear.) I frankly own that I
do not entertain any doubt on the main question involved
in the present bill—l mean as to the true interpretation of
the Christian law of marriage ; but at the same time I
make for myself the same petition as that of the right
horV, gentleman. I wish the legislation may not be
adapted to my view of Christian doctrine, but to the
general wants and exigencies of the country. I say that
we should have the ordinary means of testing those
wants and exigencies, by giving every opportunity for
deliberation. In my opinion the sentiuients of the people
of this country, of the parties most interested, namely,
the clergy, and of members of Par.iarnent—all import-
ant elements in the mass of public opinion—should have
full opportunity for expression. I do not come here with
a cut and dry system of opinion, but to do my duty as a
member of Parliament, according to the best arrange-
ment that the case will permit, and I cannot properly
determine on that arrangement if the discussion be now
precipitated. My right hon. friend says that the attend-
ance is such as to leave no room for apprehension that
the measure will not be fairly discussed. Now, if I thought
that the present attendance in this house were the at-
tendance of members waiting to dispose of divers bills, I
should agree with my right hon. friend, but no one knows
better than my right hon. friend that it is not the bills
that secure the present attendance. There is a question
coming on next Monday which has much to do with the
attendance of members, there is a political crisis impending
on the next two or three days, and a possible collision be-
tween the two houses of Parliament. Tnere is also a
question relating to the compensation of certain eccle-
siastical officers which has not yet been disposed of by
the Attorney-General, and which has much more to do
with the attendance of members in town thaa the Divorce
Bill. I believe that for the next few days members will
keep togetberto discuss the Indian mutiny and the griev-
ances of Doctors' Commons, but that when these two
questions are out of the way, the 40 gentlemen holding
office, and about 40 volunteers of unusual zeal, will be
the whole representation of the House of Commons to
dispose of the Divorce Bill. Ido not appeal on this point
t• argument. I appeal to what is better. My right hon.
friend says that the rights on. memberforOxfordshire bee
adopted an unusual course. It may be an unusual course,
but it is called for by uotnual circumstances, and I ask
my right bon. friend and the Attorney-General to let
we know on what occasion a bill of this nature, magni-
tude, and gravity was ever before submitted to Parlia-
ment the first time for consideration on the 24th of
July ? The Secretary of State says we ought to take the
various discussions in the H ,u-e of Lords as a proof of
the maturity of this measure, but he entirely misunder-
stood the right bon. member for Oxfordshire. Ii the
succession of discussions bad moved in one line of pro-
gress, then there might be something to reckon when
the bill came to tois house, but I take the case to be
exactly the reverse ; the upshot of the statement of the
right hon, member for Oxfordshire I take to be the re-
verse, and that the di-cue ions base not exhibited one
tied rm line of progress, but a fl nmating,
" wobbling" movement, iudicating the absence of clear
conviction or fixed principles ; and, if that be true, the
multitude of discussions el a %Isere and the various alte-
rations are valuable to show that the principle is yet un-
solved, and that we go into the debate wite.out any as-
sistance from those who have preceded us. I must also
say that this is the fist time in which the Heine of Com-
mons bas been called ou to entertain the subject of the
dissolution of marriage. It is true that commissions have
been issued by both houses, and the measure has been
discussed by the House of Lords, but that discussion is
of very little practical importance. Acc.irdiog to my
experience, nothing is practically before the country un-
til it comes to toe House of Commons. No doubt the
bill has been ably discussed in the House of Lords, but
the country t'iok no notice whatever of these debates. I
am not offering a mere arbitrary opinion, but giving the
results of experience. There were no petitions dent to the
House of Lerde, nor was any anxiety exhibited out of
do re. There were, to be sure, a couple of stray pamph-
lets on ore side or the other, but, mark, what was the
case when the bill came to thellouse of Commons? From
that day our t tole has groaned wile an increasing num-
eer of petitions. In the Lords there was no demonstra-
tion on the part of the clergy, but no w, sir, there has
been put into your hands a declaration, wh ch had ben
prepared in le or 12 days, which now has the signatures
of 6,000 clergymen, and is receiving hundreds of addi-
tional signatures every day. Neither are those signing of
one party in the church, but appear to represent gene-
rally the views of the clergy on this subject. Toerefore,
the fact is, that it is only when the bill comes down to
this house that the country begins to believe that the
matter is really one for legislative enactment, and I must
say that it is not very diffisult to understand why the
country should be sceptical as to these changes in the
law of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We havecalled " Wolf"
too often during the last few years, so that the. introduc-
tion of b lls for ref arming ecclesiastical courts and testa-
mentary jurisdiction is looked upon as mere formula, to
be subsequently as formally withdrawn, and therefore is
there a rooted scepticism in the mind of the country. At
all eveuts there can be no doubt bet that the last two or
three weeks have given evidence of a strong feeling in
the country. Two petitions have been sent to me, one of
which says it has been signed by every person of mature
age io the parish, and ano.iher by every churchman and
dissenter. I do not urge these as a reason why the bill
should be rsjected, but as showing that there is a feeling
abroad which should be treated with deep respect by the
house and the Government, and that we should take no
step in such a measure without having taken every pre-
caution to enable us to arrive at a just conclusion. The
right hon. member f r Oxfordshire is accused of dealing
with the details of this bill. I know not on what ground
nor how he could have taken a different course. He had
endeavoured to show that there was a mass of work to
be done, mid he wishes that we should do it in a work-
manlike manner. We must not proceed in a hasty or
slovenly manner, for we are playing with edge tools, and
something perhaps sharper, fur we pierce the heart of
the country to the quick when we approach such a sub-
ject a 8 the lawof marriage. I want time to discuss points
of importance, and notwithstanding the anathema of my
right hon. friend I must refer to some of those points on
the present occasion, seeing that we are summoned on
the 24th July, against all preeedent, to enter for the first
time on a a question of first-rate importance. In the first
place, it must be recollected that the proposal made to us
is not only inconsistent with our system of law, but is a
proposal to adopt a new system of law, entirely without
pracedeat in the legislation of any country. If the bill
gave but two alternatives—one, the indissoluble mar-
riaee, to which we have adhered since England was
England ; the other, dissoluble marriage, well
understood, carefully limited, sustained by the clear au-
thority of learned men, and the legislation of other cams-

tries—the ground would be much clearad and simplified;
but there is not a country which has legislated with a
view to make marriage dissoluble which has legislated in
the same manner. The proposal is novel, not only to the
English law but to the law of Christendom. It is ono for
which we cannot find a precedent in the custom of any

country. No country has ever made marriage dissoluble
that has not made it dissoluble on other principles, and

. .
more largely than you are going to do it now. It may be
said that this is a proof of your moderation. Ido not
dispute the moderation of the framers of the measure, I

do not dispute the moderation of the commissioners from
whose recommendations it has emanated. It may be a

proof of their moderation, but I am not here to bring an
indictment against them for want of moderation on the
one band, or to praise them for moderation on the other,