The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-20 00:00:00

power ought to unbind it, except in the case which was
provided for in the divine law—namely, that of adul-
tery. The present remedy, it was true, was far more
j
available to the wealthy than to any other ekes, but
HOUSE OF LORDS .--(YESTERDAY.) that was a misfortune which must always attend legal
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack i proceedings. He should feel it his duty to oppose the
I
at five o'clock. bill.
THE EARL OF WESTMEATH AND THE 1 Lord LYNDHURST said he had been unable to hear
"GLOBE" NEWSPAPER.
what had fallen from the right rev, prelate, but he un-
The Marquis of WESTMEATH asked the indulgence deretood him to support the bill. He (Lord Lyndhurst)
of their lordships for a few minutes while he referred to could not disguise from himself the fact that there were
a personal matter affecting his own character, in con-
great objections to this bill out of doors. Many eminent
nexion with the Divorce Bill, which was set down for
authorities in that house were opposed to it, and there-
the second reading that evening. His attention was fore he felt some anxiety with regard to the results of
called to an article of a most virulent character
this measure. He should enter into no scriptural argu-
in the Globe of last night, in which article his name ment in the presence of the episcopal bench, but he
was dragged in, again and again, in a series of state-
might refer to the authority of the Scriptures, which
ments which in themselves were utterly false, and which laid down the law that marriage might be dissolved
he verily believed were libellous. In resoect to the for adultery, that alone was a sufficient weight of
libellous part be could only say that the proper authority authority upon that part of the subject. He ad
would have to deal with it. As they concerned his witted that, according to the Roman Catholic Church,
honour, he took the present opportunity of stating that the marriage tie could not be dissolved, as the mar-
he would afford the parties an opportunity of sustainingriage tie was looked upon as a sacrament. That anthem if they could. He would merely then confine him-
thority, however, could not be traced beyond the
self to a contradiction which had been sent about on the
Council of Trent, and it was an authority which the Pro-
part of a lady who did him the honour of bearing his testants of Europe did not recognise. The rule of the
name, who left his home about 33 years ago, and who did Protestant Church was that marriage was indissoluble,
e
not appear to be yet content. The statement in the Globe even in the case of adultery, according to the law as it
was no doubt made with the view of vilifying his character. stands. The Roman Catholic Church had found means
Their lordships might naturally say that this being a pri-
for evading the law, and so had the Protestant Church
vats matter they had nothing whatever to do with it. It
in this country, and hence private legislation had been
had recourse to. It was impossible in a country like this
should, however, be recollected that the statements
were put forward in connection with the bill that was to maintain such a principle. According to this system,
to be considered by their lordships this evening. He instead of the law being equal, it was practically con-
thereforefinedto the rich. It was, therefore, impossible that any
lost not a moment in stating when the proper
solid objection could be urged to the change which his
opportunity occurred in committee npon the bill he
should most certainly meet all these statements
noble and learned friend desired to introduce. The ob-
. .
not only by direct denial, but by most positive
jeHesnt:albnrshed would n to the chan
notg e was,
be available to any but the rich.
that the courts that would be
and unrefutable evidence. He would be prepared denied this, because the proceedings would be simply
by petition, to show that they were founded on untruth, and were
there would be no labyrinth of plead-
characterised by perjury and conspiracy, that
ings, and the anevidence would be vim voce. Nothing
they never could have been made in any court where ,
could be more simple. It was urged, however, that
the testimony was view voce, but as it were behind the
persons living at a disiance could not avail themselthat
ves
curtain, in the way the evidence was taken in the cede;
of the new tribunal
siastical courts. He hoped the noble and learned lord s
bill would entirely abolish the system.
local - authorities would The answer to that wasuld be empowered to hear the
evidence on the spot, and the decision would be given in
INDIA.
London. As to the difficulty of administering such a law
In reply to a question from the Earl of ELLEN-
they had the example of Prussia and the United States,
BORourGH,
and there such a law was administered with the greatest
Lord PANMURE said he etid not feel much alarm
at the recent intelligence respecting the state of affairs in ease. The present system led to the greatest immorality.
India. Care would be taken to provide against any A man discovered his wife committing adultery. He had
serious consequences. Orders having been given to no remedy, and frequently the result was the most brutal
and degrading violence. Would not a cheap legalremedy
have a portion of our troops ready to embark
for ',China, it had since then been arranged in such a case tend much to diminish that state of immo-
that four of those regiments should embark early in the rality. Let them look at Scotland. Had any immorality
next month for India. The reason why this delay took been produced there in consequence of the extension of
place was to prevent the troops arriving in India during the law? No, it had been directly the reverse. Last
the unhealthy part of the year. year he objected to this measure because it did not go far
THE CONTINUOUS SERVICE, enough. The measure still was open to that objection in
Earl TALBOT asked whether it was the intention of his mind. He objected to the principle of the bill from its
her Majesty's Government to discharge the seamen in great inequality between the sexes—men made the laws
her Majesty'a Royal Navy entered and engaged for con-
and women were the victims. The man could commit
tinuona service ?
adultery to any extent, and the wife was left without any
Earl GRANVILLE said there was not the :lightest
remedy. The husband might be covered with every spe-
intention of breaking faith with the British seamen,
cies of infamy connected with adultery, and surely the tri-
He thought the propositions that had been made to bunal that was to be established ought to interfere in
the seamen in the royal navy, on the contrary, were such cases. It was said if this were so the tribunals
very beneficial.
would be inundated with applications • but they might
DIVORCE AND IVIATRIIIONIA.L CAUSES BILL,
rest assured that such applications would not be had re-
Lord LYNDHURST having explained certain cir-
course to except after a long course of injury. He ap-
cumstances connected with a petition that had been
pealed to the noble earl opposite upon this subject. In Scot-
transmitted to him for presentation to their lordships, land the woman equally with the man could apply to the
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second law, and no inconvenience whatever had resulted from
that state of things. If this was the state of things in
reading of the bill for matrimonial divorce, and in doing
Scotland, why should it be different in this country ? St.
A
adhere to in the bill which he proposed was the indisso- Augustine put the case of the wife upon the same footing
lability of the marriage tie, except in the most extreme as that of the husband. He made no distinction between
cases. The noble lord proceeded to refer to the early no-
the cases. Let them recollect that they were legislating
t
tions of the Church of Rome with respect to this indisso-
agains the other sex. They were men legislating against
lability of marriage, but under certain circumstances it women. As to the weight of authority upon the subject,
i
was found impossible to adhere to the principle, such, it was in favour of the views which be advocated. When
a man beat his wife or deserted her, it should be sufficient
for instance', as the pre-contract, or consanguinity of the
parties, which would tend to invalidate the marriage, and ground for divorce. The arguments for this appeared to
to such an extent was this doctrine of consanguinity car-
him t 9 be unans aerabie—they arose out of the very
reed, that on one occasion a marriage was dissolved be-
nature of marriage. A man promised to cherish, pro-
cause the husband bad stood godfather to a cousin of his tect, and never to desert a woman. No promise could
wife. At the time of the Reformation the marria be more sacred; and if one of the parties broke the con
not looked upon as it had been in the Church of Rom-
ge
e, as was
tract, it should not be thought any longer applicable to
a sacred sacrament, and several canons of differences be-
the other. What were the objects of marriage ? They
tween the parties were laid down by the early reformers were three. The first was the procreation of children,
as rendering divorce attainable. Although those canons and bringing them up in the fear of God ; the second
was stated to be to guard against sin ; the third was the
had never become law, still the doctrines were shortly
after partially acted upon. The first case being that of comfort of the one by the other. All these sacred objects
were defeated by the malicious abandonment of the
a divorce a mensa et thoro obtained by the Marquis
wernano Would they say that, under such circum-
greeof Northampton in 1550. Having obtained this de-
of divorce, a question arose as to whether the stances, she should be bound to an unfaithful husband ?
parties were in a position to" agree to enter into the But it was said that it was doubtful whether this was
marriage contract. The question was raised before the
scriptural, or in accordance with ecclesiastical authori-
courts of law, but before it was finally settled the mar-
ties. This point had been discussed solemnly over and
quit had taken upon himself to settle the case, and
over again, at the time of the Reformation, and it was
decided that adultery afforded a fair ground for divorce.
again married, and an act of Parliament was afterwards
N
passed legalising the marriage. The noble and learned Nor was this only the opinion of the ecclesiastics ;
lord then referred to the case of Lord de Roos, Countess even the most learned jurist of the Contineut—Grotius
of Macclesfield. and other cases of divorce which had oc- —had held the same opinion ; while, in Scotland,
curred in the sixteenth century. by means of acts of Par-
Lord Stanhope had, in the most decided man-
Lament. From the year 1715 to 1775, a period of 60 ner, pronounced in favour of the same conclu-
years, there were 60 bill. passed dissolving marriage on ston. If the noble and learned lord did not take this
the ground of the adultery of the wife. During the last view of the case he should feel it his duty himself to
quarter of that century the number of cases increased t take up the matter. A man married a woman, lived
with her a short time, spent her money, and then. aban-
o
about three in a year, and during the half of the present '
cloned her—she might receive more money, her husband
Century the numbers were about two in each year, all
of which, with few exceptions, were founded on cases of might spend that, and then abandon her again. This
adultery on the part of the wife. There was no doubt had often happened. There was a case well known in
the annals of law—a young girl of 15 years of age carried
therefore, that there was something like a feeling of the
off, and partly by force and partly by persuasion com-
propriety of giving redress to the man whose wife had
polled to a marriage. The man was tried for the abduc-
committed adultery. The question for their lordships
lion, sentenced to two yea' imprisonment, but in the
Was, whether tiaia was a feeling which should receive
sanction at the bands of the Legislature? The present opinion of the judge the marriage could not be dissolved.
state of the law had been often complained of, and in Zoo lady was made a ward in Chancery, the two years'
i
1850 a commission was directed to Lord Campbell, Dr. imprisonment expired, and the man left and was never
Lushington, Lord Breughten, Mr. Walpole, Vice Chan-
heard of afterwards. This was not an isolated case. He
cellar Wood, Mr. Bouverie, and Lord Redesdale to in-
would appeal to the noble lord opposite as to the effects
if the law of Scotland. By that law desertion dissolved
quire into the whole subject, and that commission, after (
the most careful inquiry, recommended that whereas the marnage. Much had been said about the matter
practice had grown up which entitled a man to a private in that country, and the lawyers there heel decided
bill in the event of the adultery of his wife, it would be that desertion and adultery were scriptural causes
better that the law should, by means of a competent tri- for divorce. He was astonished at the differences
bunal, do that as a matter of right for those who bad Isg7-
between the law in Scotland and in this country,
timste ground of complaint which they now obtained by though under the same Government and the same Legis-
lature, and they brought in bills to assimilate the laws
special privilege. This was what he proposed to adopt.
The bill would provide that the court should be coneti-
1 affected the families of the whole empire. A man in of commerce of the two countries, but not those which
tuted of the Lord Chancellor, one of the Chief Justices, 1
and the proposed judge of the court—the new Court of Scotland might be divorced, might come back with a
Probate. At the close of the last centur in 1798 near wife, and his first wife in this country might sue
y, ,
Lord Loughborough established certain standing orders for a restitution of conjugal rights, and this in the same
country. His strength prevented him saying then what
with reference to divorce bids, and under one of these
standing sr der3 no divorce bill could be entertained un-
he meant to say on the criminal part of the bill ; he
t
less there were laid upon the table the proceedings which must reserve hat for another opportunity. His noble
the injured party had taken in one of the Ecclesiastical friend said that an action for criminal conversation was
Courts, and before a court of common law in an action not to bs brought till after a divorce; they were to have
the divorce first, the criminal conversation after. So
for criminal conversation. The effect of this require -
that, however criminal the eeducer might be, no action
ment was that all these disgusting details had to he in-
vestigated on three different oecasions. There were many could be brought against him till a divorce had actually
grave objections to this course, among others the error-
taken place. There were minor matters besides upon
mous expenses which it entailed, and which placed the
which he would not then eneer, but he would state this,
that if he had postponed the mention of these amend-
remedy out of the reach of all but the most wealthy par
merit they might hay© aonees the principle of the bill
ties. He proposed that but one inquiry should be gone
into, and that the proceedings should be viva voce evi-
without them, but he 'felt these things to be of so much
deuce, and that before a jury instead of by the oomph-
importance that he 'cad brought them forward in order
tilted mod© adopted in the ecclesiastical courts. He pro-
that before the coenraittee canoe oa their lordships might
posed that any husband compleining that his wife had
have an opporoanity of carefully considering them. If
they were mereed ili committee, he trusted to their sense
been unfaithful should be entitled at once to a decree
which should give him the same rignta as private acts of of justice to rescue throe who had been the victims of
Parliament now gave, the busta id, of curse, showing
the present law by a careful consideration of the argu-
that he had not at the same time boen guilty of an offence ments wnich he had brought ftrward,
of a similar kind to those of which, he complained. It Lord. WENSLEYDALE would not oppose the se-
had been coutended by many persons that this bill did cond reading of tho bill, but ho had his misgivings be•
not go far enough. There were those who thought that fore, and be would explain them then. The tribunal
divorce should not be granted upon any ground except would be established in London, and be only available
that of adultery, while others took a much wider ' , easily for persons resident in London, Again, a
of the latitude which ought to be given. Ho view
believed it who did not like to live with his wife. would eke man
would be as impossible as unwise to extend the licence easy course of dissolving the marriage. The answer to
of divorce to anything short of adultery. (Hear, hear.) this had been, that in Scotland the same effects did not
It had been the course of the house to grant to the hue- take place, but he could reply that the character of the s
two countries was essentially different. Still, as parts'
similar privilege was
band with the divorce the power to marry again, but a
of the bill were very valuable he should not oppose tho
grit accorded to the wife. It was
possible for a wife to pardon a husbend, but hardly pof• sec md reading. His noble friend's objection that
action for criminal conversa.thln would only hold after
sible for their lordships to conceive the case of a husband
the dissolution of the marriage, wawa very powerful one,
exceedingly rare where divorces have been granted in the
pardoning hie wife, and therefore the instances have been
1 and he sincerely hoped that this provision would not be
case of the adultery of the husband, and they had been adopted. With this excaauation he should vote for the
free on the ground of incestuous intercourse. He pro-
second reading of the bill.
posed to give as grounds for divorce on the part of the The Earl of MALMESBURY agreed with the noble a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
and learned lord who ha f just now sat down, that there wife, incest, bigamy, and case:; where adultery bad been
The Willenhale (Wolverhampton) Gas Bill was con-
coupled with such gross crilstity ordesertion, as would with- was so much good in the bill that he should not oppose sidered, and ordered to he read a third time.
out the adultery entitle the wine to a divorce a mensa the second reading. Shin' he objected to the facilities
et thorn. He believed that :his course would be one most given to those who were divorced under the bill to marry BIRKENHEAD AND LIVERPOOL DOCKS.
agreeable to the feelings of the people of this country, and again. The adulterous parties under any circumstances, Colonel W. PATTEN moved that the minutes of
if he entertained any doubts oil the subject, those doubts unless some collusion was proved to the satisfaction of evidence taken before the committees on the Birken-
w
would he entirely removed by the discussionwhich had the Court, were by the bill allowed to marry again, Docks Bill (1854), the Birkenhead Dock Corn-
head
taken place some short time since in the Prussiau Chant- Nothing could tend more to immorality than such a pany ' s Bill (1854), tee Liverpool Docks Poll (1855,)
hers on the subject of the divorce law. When the bill clause. Suppose that two persons had committed the Birkenhead Dock Trustees Bill (1855), the Birken-
whieh he now introduced had on a previous occasion
aridauglettawys,eetihmacti telfleuyitwrreyreteit)ok mplaarerey;
was it for the interest konhead Dock Trustees) Bill (1855), the Birkenhead and that after mar- head and Liverpool Decks (Trust Property of the Biro
paseed the house, a clause was introduced by the Bishop
of morality to allow a further marriage? If a man had Docks Bill (1856), and the Admiralty and Board of Trade
of Oxford, which prohibited the adu terer from ever roar-
R- Reports on the bills, be referred to the committee on
seduced a woman and then debauched her mind, there
rying again with the adultr:;ss. He. (the Lord Chancellor)
raised his solitary voice against the clause, and it was were no grounds for hini to demand a divorce in case the group Aof private bills.—Agreed to,
carried almost by acclamation by their lordships, and he woman again committed adultery. He wished for some RETURNS.
thought of clause 19, which allowed three causea Several unopposed returns were.
thought then, and still thought, that the clause was one
ordered to be laid on
under a woman could demand a divorce The first the table of the house.
which would be mot mischievous in its tendenc - A
was the of Incestuous d
plea adultery. Now if which,a man corn-
clause to this effect was always introduced in the IiTHE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.
i !nutted adultery with his wife's sister, would that permit Mr. WYLD presented the following petition from the
private divorce bills, but it invariably struck out I
either in the committee was
of the house or by the House the man to override the law of England and to marry assignees, committee of depositors,' and depositors of the
his wife's sister 1 Was he to be in the position of a man Royal British Bank :--
of Commons- With respect to the propriety of
that had not married, or of ono whose wife had died ? ° That the laws now in force relating to the bankruptcy
allowing actions of crim con still to continue, he thought
that the beat course to a. dop,t would be to leave these ac- He suegatted that a power should be given to the courts and winding-up of joint-stock companies are defective,
tions to their fats; And inasmuch most injurious to tho interests of creditors, and opposed to
,as these actions were to restrict marriages)ii,n, such cases.
now reqnueirepdretpo_l: brought previous to obtaining the The Duke of NOLA. OLK was astonished to hear the the ordinary principles of bankruptcy in not providing for
divorce,
the rerOlisation and equal distribution of the separate eg-
os proposed that they iseouni only be brought in noble and learned lord assert that councils and popes had tatete of shareholders, at the instance of assignees, or the
consequence of or after that l divorce) had been obtained. granted dissolutions of marriage. He did not believe that re So far with regard to the representatives of creditors.
of the 1
ainwobject of the bill with re- the noble lord could cite a single direct case of any such gard to a divorce. a vinous
•arettsno destructive -niteoests of
to tti regard to a divorce a dissolution either by a pope or a general council. It was eharebolders in laewavai
mensa et thoro he preptisee
ed (however-come esuous
to
ar=il
It
new cause of j esti. a universal opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that contributing fairly
fication, and that was desertiote tonwgards athexepeolesletsof the
often happened that marriages were indisoluble. He would, therefore, ten- the consequence and heavy
a man deserted his wife without dual creditors.
rbeeasonable cause, and der every assistance in throwing out the bill. expense of actions leperainnylvin-
after a time he came back, and if the voile bad any pro- Lord. CAMPBELL said that the house would receive Be‘t,7llteapttci,ylLedxpcebdaineneetryto
tceongferarntpopwreertertiethnetoCtobuertpsoorf. party ho took it. He proposed to give in .
reznaenedeletroperty of shareholders, with the consent of the
stuthic,mneceatsedea. with respect the efforts of the noble duke to throw out
pow er of divorce a mensa et...there, anpdeet,2hde the bill, because by his faith and that of his ancestors
aertion be fixed at two years. He pro
riesreentatives of creditors (to be chosen for
afterbe a rowariag was a eacrattient. But their lordships were in that perpesrorevill
decree a mensa et thoro a married wonaan shouldat no bankruptcy), upon such
the
.majority a Protestant assembly •; it was their terms as the Court roathejisint fit.
titled to any property she might acquire as though she opinion that by the words of the Divine founder , of• " That provision sboYualdnybe
jmoiatnatetsotcoecnkstute the ceasing
)11
inot
infi
og.lber,haa.
accordance
trtaorkib:yi.rve.u:pnri
obtainedstlec'yuy,itnc.)i n
forthwith,os rdbeyr tha t
either adjudication
with
the a o Companyoant ierintirnpe
concurrence
were an unmarried wennan. This would, by some par_ their faith marriage was dissoluble in cases of ad if be thought a very inn perfer.q remedy. There T.ere
to he
and it was only by quibbling that these words were,
titnof recent legislation should be I:
thoso who advocated this suhject or divorce who wished
(1,, br ed explainedv, ,e
he company, zuel that further provisions
to go much further. If he ehould have succeeded in the
islleydale) had said that the provision Was
law 3,1 it at present contrary to toe law of England, aud that by that law
marriag()rem:tit!
soi
tto
stood
measure) in iinpreving the
stood, he should think he had accomplished mu-oh, af. .
e was indisselehle. 'This Was a mare legal sub• eennech'e landla)cewthough he might still leave more to bo done. The object tie.
-5-, eetoken by i .ye
r, a .attyer, and was contrary both to coin- calls 11 -
rapt ' fine y mill up and. b.
Atlo the affairs of a bank-
company.
of the bi 4 was to do away with the anomaly of private man „let t'
e and to fa-, i ,
r, r 200 years marriage by the "That power should also -
legislation for the benefit of the wealthy only. With law of Ea ,l e '-'''be conferred upon the courts
had been dissolved in cases of adultery. of Baukruptcy anti Cha-
these few observations be asked their lordships to give a By the practice ice of the law any husband
who could aigrettes or represents' .ecery, with the consent of the as-
..:tves of creditors, and also with the
second reading to the bill. !prays adultery on the
part of the wife could demand corwent of a certrtm •
proportion of the creditors, to t'
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said hither o the i a divorce. lie
aat the head of commission a •compromise 'oetween any or all of the shareholders and
attempts to remedy existing evils bad led to many of the ; appointed to inquire into state of the marriage law, , 'she creditowt, which power would be in accoidaticerswainth
evils in the present system at this rnoment e whOing. He and they were seocked by the
Caine
the consideration of the pre- priuciplea already recognised by the bankrupt laws."
had therefore always telt
6 great doubt upon the subject of ! sent syetein. Firstly l the action for criminal tor,_ ,SAVINGS BANK BILL.
legislating with regardto matrimony. The l 1 groat." ` i 1.- ' tir•.
y oae one -
read-
believed that when the marriage tie was fiXA nO human be passed by bob house,. Latelyn thtehßen a law
ir
Ad to 0 quer, what time ha inte d d fie for
n e ,to x the second •
—.onse of Coin, l ing of the Sayings Bank Pill, issued en Saturday, and

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

mous had accepted the evidence as given at their lord-
ships' house, but he knew several cases where the Com-
mons required evidence of their own, this being the
fourth time when the same evidenc3 was required, to the
great detriment of public morality. All the commission-
ers, with one exception, agreed that there ought to be a
tiihunal established to examine the evidence and pro-
nounce a decree. He believed that the apprehensions of
his noble and learned friend would be fund to be ground-
less. His noble friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had argued
that we should put the two sexes on an entire equality.
This might be for the committee to consider. But that
wisest of all codes, the civil code, only allowed a divorce
on the part of the woman when the husband brought a
woman into his own house. He would oily allow a
divorce where it was impossible for the two persons to
live together, which was only in the case of the adultery
of the wife. If the adultery of the husband was accom-
panied by aggravation, so as to prevent the continuance
of the marriage, then the contract should be at an end.
So far he would go with his noble and learned friend,
and no further. As it was understood that the bill was
to be read a second time, all further discu4sion was un-
necessary at present. Otherwise he should have first
treated the arguments of his right reverend friend (the
Bishop of Oxford), and endeavoured to answer them.
But it was the understanding that no opposition should
be offered to the second reading of the Bill. Before
going into committee, he wished to know how the bill
applied to Ireland

- The Marquis of WESTMEATH—I was going to
mention that.

Lord CAMPBELL—If an Irishman had an unfaith-
ful wife he still would have to petition the House of
Lords. There should be a civil tribunal established in
Ireland or some means provided for giving the same fa-
cilities in that country as in this. With regard to the
action for criminal conversation, he regretted that his
noble and leerned friend did not with one blow put an
end to that system. He was ashamed of it. He had
been taunted with it, when he had been obliged to con-
fess to foreigners that such was the law of the country-
There were many who would be entirely deprived of the
advantages of this bill. The noble duke had instanced
the Roman Catholics. They could not obtain a dissolu-
tion of their marriage, and they could have no redress
under the provisions of this bill.
Viscount DUNGANNON would divide the house
against the bill even if he stood alone. Was not the re-
medy worse than the disease ? All dissuasion showed
this. How fearful a source of evil would this bill be to
the lower orders—in disrupting the only tie that too
many of them held sacred. The difficulty of divorce was
a blessing to society. People settled down into harmony
and wedded comfort, who otherwise might have flown
off in a tangent to some of these tribunals to divorce
them for a guinea. It might appear presumptuous in so
young a peer, but he should make bold to move that the
bill be read that day six months.
Lord REDESDALE thought that the authority of
Scripture was rather in favour of the indissolubility of
marriage. The feeling of the country and the law were
both against divorce. There were only two divorces on
an average granted annually. Was it better to extend
this principle or take it away altogether, and so make
marriages even more holy and irrefragable I The expe-
riment now proposed was certainly a dangerous one.
The Bishop of SA.LISBUBY advocated the total abo-
ition of the divorce a vinculo. Its extension to the poorer
classes, instead of a blessing would be a curse. There
was no authority in the New Testament for a separation
such as would allow remarriage. If this bill was passed
the clergy who could not recognise the dissolubility of
marriage would have great difficulty to reconcile the law
of God with the law of man, their loyalty to their Queen
with their loyalty to the Supreme.

The Bishops of Bangor, Llandaff, and Durham, took
the same side.

The Marquis of WESTMEA.TH hoped the bill would
be extended to Ireland.

Tue Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill.; first be-
cause there was no scriptural warrant for remarriage ;
and, secondly, because the bill was generally ill consi-
dered. His lordship complained that the term " quib-
bling " bad been applied to the arguments of himself and
his right rev. colleagues. He disagreed with Lord
Lyndhurst's interpretation of St. Augustine in remar-
riages, which the Christian law did not sanction. '
LYNDHURS r explained.
The Bishop of OXFORD did not deny the authority
for divorce, but such divorce was only a mensh et thoro
—not such as to qualify for remarriage. The law of mar-
riage as at present existing was disgraceful, but the pre-
sent law went to make it worse. This bill would ,be a
deceit on the country. It pretended to give equal rights
to the poor with the rich, but did nothing of the kind.
Like all laws, now passing and lately passed, it made the
procedure so expensive as to amount to a denial of jus-
tice. The rich could pay—the poor could not ; the rich
would be divorced—the poor would remain in vice, dis-
cord, and adultery, as before. To get divorce, then, to
the poor—nay, to tha middle classes—they must bring
it down to the county courts. A divorce for halc-a-
crown ! Were their lordships prepared to come to that
The machinery of the present bill might be expensive,
but its principle was declaratory, and such being the
case, the practice, sooner or later, must be adapted, to
the more efficacious carrying out of this principle. The
bill would lead to perpetual conflict of jurisdiction be-
tween the civil and ecclesiastical courts,
The Bishop of LONDON gave his hearty approval to
the principle of the bill. (Hear.) The right rev. prelate
argued at some length, that there was no precept of
Christianity which could be used as an argument in fa-
vour of the perfect indissolubility of marriage under every
circumstance, and he contended that there might be acts
of such a character as would be sufficient to reader mar-
riage dissoluble. He denied, too, that the law of the
Church or of the State recognised the perfect indissolubi-
lity of marriage. The private bills which were passed
every year dissolving marriages, and the Church which
remarried the parties after their separation, proved that
such was not the principle of either State or Church. If
these divorces were to be granted, it would be much bet-
ter that they should be pronounced by such a court as
that proposed to be instituted rather than by the present
exceptional and partial system. He thought it was not
right that we should any longer keep up the old system,
but should lose no time in setting the matter on a broad
and intelligible basis. (Cheers.)
The Duke of ARGYLL contended that the passage
in St. Matthew fully recognised the right of a man to
put away his wife, not merely as a mensa et thoro,, but
a vinculo, and said that his right rev. friend the Bishop
of Oxford must give up the theolog'cal part of his argu-
ment. With respect to the objection of the right rev. pre.
late that the bill would create a remedy only for the rich
and not for the poor, there was no reason whatever to
suppose that an equal amount of relief would be afforded
by the bill to the classes of England, as was the case in
Scotland.

The Bishop of LINCOLN said the only point of diffe-
rence between the member," of the episcopal bench was,
whether the woman after being divorced should be in a
position to contract a second marriage. Conceiving that
the permission to contract a second marriage by the di-
vorced woman would lead to groat social and moral evils,
he should feel it his duty to oppose the second reading.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, then put the question
that the word " now" stand Fart of the bill.
The house divided, when there appeared—
Content 47
Non content
Majority for the second reading —29
The house then adjourned at ten minntes past ten.

It is worthy of notice that, for the first time in the an-
nal 3 of the House of Lords, strangers were not ordered
to withdraw during the division. The old system was
the cause of great inconvenience without the slighte4t
advantage to balance it, and the reporters more espe-
cially have to thank those, whoever they are, through
whom this ray of troublesome etiquette has been thrown
away.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTEuDAY.)

The SrEAKEn took the chair shortly before 4 o'clock.

NEW, ME VIBERS.
The following members took the oaths and their seats:
C. Hamilton, Sir H. F. Davie, Mr. W. Jack-
son, Mr. Crook, Col. Clifford, Sir J. Owen, and Mr.
Blake.