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

the church. That was, no doubt, a question for discus-
sion by the house, but it referred to the detail, and not
to the principle of the measure. As to th, first, that the
ineeetn.ent in opposiTion t) the measure e as more active
than that in suppert of it, that was explainable, simply
by the circumstance that the bill hail been tik,m up by
the Government, had been passed through that portion
of the I,gi,lature where it was supposed to be most in
danger, and therefore those who supported it had little
fear of fat ore, while those who were opleised to it were
stimulated to more active exertions, even by the proba-
bility that these exertions would be unavailing. Look-
ing to the business of the session, it was sitar that they
had not so much to show for the time which they had sat
as to be able to afford to throw away the labour which
had already been expended on this bill. Unless this bill
and another relating to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction be-
came law, they would have nothing to show in the way
of administrative reform after several months passed in
legislation. It was his belief that a large bo ly of persons
in the country vvou!il see with regret and disappoint-
ment the decision of the House of Commons and the
Government, if that decision should be to abandon the
measure. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER said if the only question which was to
be discussed this session was whether marriage was dis-
soluble or riot on the ground of adultery, he should be
prepared to give his opinion that it it was. (Hear, hear.)
There were many members of the Roman Catholic church
whese opinions would be most valuable, and he should
have been very glad if he had been able to ascertain the
views of the bishops and clergy of his own church, and
the opinions of his c instituents, whom he was generally
in the habit of consulting. The question was a most
licate and difficult one ; and Sir James Macintosh, in
discussing it, said :—" To make the dissolution of mar-
riage elks accessible to all is one of the objects to which,
in great cities and in high civiiiied communities, it is
hardest to point out a sate rule." Now, supposing the
bill to pass in its present shape, how would the law stand ?
In Scotland, parties who committed adultery were not
allowed to marry again. This bill would permit them
to do so. In Ireland the dissolubility of marriage was
objected to. In England, parties guilty of adultery would
be permitted to marry again. To one clause of the bill
Ise entertained the strongest objection—he meant the
clause which compeled clergymen who entertained con-
scientious scrup!es on the subject to merry parties who
had been guilty of adultery. Such a proceeding woull
be towards them an intolerable tyranny, and to that part
of the bill he should give his most uncompromising oppo-
sition. The house was called upon, not to decide on an
abstract question, but to consider a great social problem.
The measure involved questions of the greatest gravity,
and although he approved of a considerable portion of it,
he agreed with many men of great learning and autho-
rity that other portions were extremely objectionable. He
submitted that at that late period of their session, when
their " days were numbered," the government ought not
to press forward the bill, but to let it stand over to ano-
ther session, when more time could be bestowed upon its
consideration.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said from the speeches
which had already been delivered he was perfectly con-
vinced that no set of men were more prepared to
discuss the question now under consideration than
those members who had already addressed the house.
And yet, what was the nature of their appeal ? Give us
more time. (Laughter.) Did the right hon. member for
Oxfordshire require more time ? Was he ignorant of the
subject ! What was the plea of the right bon, and learned
gentleman who had just spoken ? " Let me consult my
constituents"—who appeared to have been so indifferent
to the subject that they had cot even communicated the:r
wishes to him. (Laughter.) The right hon, and learned
gentleman appeared desirous also of consulting his spi
ritual advisers, but how long did he require for the per-
formance of that great conscientious duty ? Then the
noble lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) who protested
against having the measure forced down his throat, de-
cidedly objected to stopping to deliberate and consult,
although he was prepared to stop till doomsday to sup-
port and carry on a dogged opposition as the measure.
(Laughter.) These were specimens of the appeals which
had been made to the house to put off till to-morrow
that which had been called for year after year until
there was not a writer, not a jurist, not a foreign
obseiv.r of r,ttr manners and constitution who had not
pointed out these matters as a blot and disgrace to
to them. (Hear.) And yet, because it was the 24th
of July the house was called upon to refuse to discuss
this important subject of domestic legislation. Now,
what was the proper course of proceeding with respect
to this measure ? If it had originated in that house,
hon. gentlemen would have said it was indecent to
bring it forward there for the first time; that it ought
to have been submitted to the House of Lords, where
the advice of the bench of bishops, and those most
campetent to consider the matter would have been
obtained. Now that course had been adopted, and
the result of the deliberations of their lordships was
before the house. He would appeal from the right hen.
member for Oxfordshire to the right hon. member for
Buckinghamshire—the candour of whose mind he well
knew. That right bon. gentleman fiad deprecated the
dissolution of Parliament, because it would cause the loss
of ayear's legislation. The right hon. gentleman did not
desire to be a true prophet in that respect, and her Majesty's
Government had done their best to ensure the failure of
his prophecy. There was abundant time for deliberation,
and he called upon the right hon. gentleman to appeal
to his friends not to impede the progress of legislation,
but to remain for a short time, to consider the subject.
It was not an appeal to new principles. It embraced
nothing but what had been known to the law of Eng-
land for 200 years, Why, he asked, should the house
spend its time in deliberating whether it would delibe
rate or not 1 If he bad been allowed to proceed, he
should have concluded his remarks long before the hour
at which they had now arrived. (A laugh.) He was
confident that one-half the time which had been given to
the discussion of the Testamentary Bill would be more
than sufficieot for a full and twist ctory discussion of
the principles involved in the present measure, and
trusted that they vveuld agree to perform the work of
the day, and not in a spirit of indolence postpone its
consideration until another session. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS said his decided opinion was that there
was not abundance of time to discuss the bill, and that
it ought not to be pressed on the attention of the house
at that late period of the session. It was quite impos-
sible to proceed with the second reading at that late hour
(half-past 10 o'clock). The debate must necessarily be
adjourned—till when ? Monday was bespoken for th,
Indian debate, which might occupy more than one night.
Thursday was fixed for another great debate—on the
Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. On Friday the esti-
, mates came on. This debate could not be resumed be-
' fora Monday the 3d of August. How long did the noble
lord mean to keep them there, with their intellectual
faculties subdued and worn out by intense labour and the
hot weather ? (Laughter.) Tnero were several com-
mittees sittieg, and he fearlessly asserted that no man
was equal to such intense wore: in the present state of
the weather. (Renewed laughter.) This bill had been
shown to involve questions of the utmost importance and
difficulty, which were sufficient to engage the best
energies of the house. It was said that they had the
benefit of the discussions elsewhere ; but the measure had.
been so often discussed in the other house that the public
attention was only fixed on it alter it came down to that
house. A document had been placed in their hands,
containing the protest of 500 clergymen against the bill.
Surely they ought to be listened to on a measure which
involved the sacredness of the marriage tie. The House of
Lords had devoted two months to the consideration of the
bill. He felt overwhelmed with its importance, and was
convinced that it could not receive sufficient consideration
this year. If they were kept there till October they could
not discuss it properly. (A. laugh.) It was said that our
existing divorce law was a blot on the statute-book, be-
cense a rich man could get a divorce and a poor man.
could no.. (Hear.) Riches did not produce all blessings,
and perhaps it was an advantage to the poor that they
had not such facilities for obtaining divorce. (Hear.) He
would not be a concurring party to discussing a measure
like this in the month of August, and it would not be
di-cussed sooner. If the other house devoted two months
to the discussion something like the same time would be
necessary here. As this was the first time the measure
had been discussed in that house, it would be much better
to re-introduce it at the beginning of the session, and
then it would be seen that the discussions in the other
house bad not been thrown away The Attorney-General
asked them to abandon their right of discussion because
the bib had been fully discussed elsewhere. Seeing the
universal feeling in the house against proceeding with
the bill—(uo, no)—at all events a most strong feeling on
that side the house against proceeding with the bill, he
appealed to the noble lord at the head of the Government
to withdraw it, unless he could ensure them four or five
consecutive nights for its discussion.
Viscount PALMERSTON—I must say that the pro-
ceeding which has taken place this night is one of the
the most extraerdinery that I ever knew, and one of the
greatest departures from the ordinary proceedings of this
house. (Hear.) It is undoubtedly common, %then gen-
tlemen object to a bill on the second reading, instead of
objecting to the principle, or negativing the bill, to pro-
pose a postponement of the second reading for six
months or some shorter period ; but I de not recollect an
instance when those who objected to a bill, in-tend of
allowing the member having charge of it to state to the
house the grounds on which he submits it for their
approbation, have stepped in and anticipated the dis-
cussion, and instead of hearing one syllable of the motive
on which the bill is founded, have contended that it must
be postponed for a period beyond that to which the ses-
sion is calculated to last. I say that that is a proceeding
unusual, discourteous to those having charge of the bill,
and not in conformity with the ordinary practice of par-
liament. But it is a proceeding which negatives the very
grounds that are Lid for it; because, while those who op-
pose this bill affect to say that they are not prepared to
discuss it, and only wish for time, it is quite manifest,
not only from the motion itself, but from the speeches
by which it has been supported, that they are against
the bill on principle. And much fairer it wouldhave
been, much more honourable to them, and much more in
accordance with their real feeling, if instead of a miser-
able motion for putting off the bill for a month, they bad
opposed. the bill on principle and negatived the motion
for the kecond reading in the usual way. The pretence
that there is not time to consider the bill is too shallow
to be listened to for a moment. For whom is that delay
demanded? Fur those who wish to oppose the bill, and
have not had time to consider it and make up their
minds on the subject. Those who have heard the speeches
of Mr. Henley, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Bowyer, will, I
think, be of opinion that they have deeply and maturely
considered the matter, that their minds are full of argu-
ment on the subject, that they are stored with every ob-
jection that can be urged to the bill, and are as ready
now as they could be if 12 months were given them for
consideration to discuss the measure on its principle and
in all its details. Therefore thatfor them delay is demanded
is apretext most futile, and not founded upon any grounds.
But is it for the country that delay is demanded, in order
that public opinion may be matured on the subject ?
Why, we know that the measure has been before the