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

rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1857

but I want to know, among other things, in making a
change in a law of this antiquity and importance, what
prospect of stability is afforded for this new system you
are about to introduc. ; and it is material in deciding that
queetein, to c insider that this new plan has never yet
been ad pta 1 in any part of Christendom, or I believe in
any couatry outside Christendom, but certainly not
within the limits of Christendom, either in Ro nen Ca-
tholic countries., countries cf the Eastern Church, or
Protestant countries. That appears to me to be a good
reason, among a multitude of others, why we should have
ample time to consider what we are about. We are not
provided with the requisite information at this moment to
enable us to legislate satisfactorily. Now, air there was
a point referred to by the right hon. gentleman (Nlr. Hen-
ley) of immense importance. If the right hon. gentleman
had not raised the question by his motion, if the bill had
been passed in haste and without due deliberation, what
according to the right hon. gentleman, should we have
done? Under the idea of legislating for the benefit of the
poor and middle classes we should, by passing this bill,
actually cut off from those classes those facilities for the
minor and ecclesiastical divorce which they now enjoy
through the medium of the local courts. The bill was
discussed during two months in the House of Lords,
and by all the learned lore of the country. Yet they
never found this out. It was reserved for the patient
acumen of the right hoc. gentleman the member for Ox-
fordshire to find that, while we supposed that we were
legislating for the benefit of the poor and middle classes
—assuming it to be for their benefi .—it cut off from the
great mass of the people those legal judicial remedies in
suits of marriage of which hitherto they have been ena-
bled to avail themselves. In consequence of a conversa-
tion I land with the right hon. gentleman I have been led
to ascertain how the case stands in Scotland, in order to
ascertain the effects of localising the courts, for though
we have no means of dissolving marriage, we have the
means, as the law stands, of effecting judicial separation.
In that respect our system is curiody contrasted with
that which exists in Scotland, for while we have got local
courts to administer a limited law of divorce, Scotland
has no local courts, but administera the law—not a limited
law like ours, but a law extending to the dissolution of
marriage—by means of a central tribunal. What could
have been more natural in any full consideration of the 1
subject with a view to legislation than to have inquired
into the state of the facts as regards Scotland, and to
have a-curtained from those facts what the probable re-
sult of concentrating the matrimonial suits in London
would be. Fee there we have an example before our
eyes, and it is a very important point whether we are to
entertain matrimonial suite in a central court in London
or in 30 local courts spread all over the country. Upon
that point we have no information. When, however, I
a v how importact the question was in reference to re
stricting the facilities given to the middle and poorer
classes, I endeavoured to see how the case stood in Scot-
land. I spoke to the Lord Advocate, but he had no infor-
mation to give. Nobody thought it worth while to in-
quire, and no information could be obtained. The noble
lord could tell me of the number of divorces, but as to the
habitation of the parties be could tell me nothing. I
want back to the report of the commission of 1853, and
then I found an acc mint of about 100 ,iivorces that had
taken place within some 6 or 8 years perhaps, but the
number of years does not matter. The names of the
parties were described, and in most cases the residence
was given, but riot in all ; but there was not one of those
divorces--or if one, it was an exception to the ru!st—
that came from the remote parts of Scotland. As far
as the information I was thus enabled to obtain goea
the appearance of the case is this—that the law of
divorce in Scotland is not a law of divorce for Scotland,
but for Ediaburgh, Leith, and the immediate neighbour-
hood of those towns which are in easy and cheap com-
munication with them ; bat the great bulk of the ruial
districts, especially in the northern and western portions
of the country, are completely cut off from access to
divorce, by the fact of there being only one court. Now,
it that right—is that a system we should introduce into
this country ? (Hear, hoar.) It is al!1 very well for legal
reformers who draw diagrams of law refuel!, on paper,
and view them with the accuracy and precision of a
mathematician dealing with a problem, to propose a
central court with its well-paid officers and its staff of
advocates, and to conclude that they have done all that
is necessary. But here is a practical point involved, and
I have mentioned these facts to ebow the importance, as
affecting the rights of the poorer and middle classes, of
the proposal for estalliehing a single central court in-
stead of a number of local courts spread through the
country. (Hear.) The population of Edinburgh and
Leith is about one-twentieth of that of the whole of Scot-
land, so that they ought to have about one-twentieth of
the divorces if the business of the courts were equally
distributed. But by the retura contained in the
report of the commissioners to which I have
alluded, it appears that instead of one-twentieth,
Edinburgh and Leith, without speaking of the
neighbourhoad, furnish one-third of the whole
of tho divorces that take place in Scotland.
This shows that the question of the local courts is vital
to the whole matter. Do not let me be told that this
may be all very true ; that we can make these ceuite
local afterwards. It is a clear axiom that we ought to
avoid perpetual meddling with the law of marriage. We
should establish what we think a good system, but not
be continually worrying a subject of this kind with per-
petual changes. (Hear.) I would ask the house to con-
sider the number of questions that are ievelved—ques-
tions that are not to he regarded as of mere detail, but
which, nevertheless, can only bo considered in committee,
inasmuch as the opinion of members can only be given
by means of changes proposed. If the right hon. gi.ntle
man thinks that we have so little to discus be will be
undeceived when we come to the second reading. I will
refer shortly to some peiote of the utmost importance
which must be discussed when we come to consider the
bill itself. You have to consider whether are prepared
to establish for England offhand, without inviry, but
based upon the opinion of the house, a eytom which no
other country has ever seen ; or whether you will adopt
some one of those systems that have the sanction and the
authority of previoue legislation—that is, whether you
will extend the principle of dissolution of marriage to
other causes besides adultery, which, iu the jeagment
of men as wise as yourselves, have been held to be valid
causes fair the diseointion of the marriage tie ? (dear,
hear.) There is one English authority that should in-
duce us to adopt that view—viz., the Reformation League
upon which we shall have much to say when we cerne to
the second riading of the bill. But let us 100 r for a
moment at tEe inadmissibility Of that plea. The Refer-
mation League does not say you ought to have divorce
for adultery only, but for adultery and a number of miler
causes ; and where is the man who will ask us to pro-
ceed upon the authority of the Reformation League to
give divorce for adultery and refuse it for those other
causes which that authority recognises ? There is anoteer
point in which the framers of this bill have overthrown
the authority of the Reformation League. That procee is
upon the principle of equality of rights between the two
eels say
subject under consideration wid admit of
fir myself that on every occa-
ssie,x,:awahnedn
the
it, I will be here to assert that principle. (Cheers.) It
is impossible not to do great mischief to begin now in the
middle of the nineteenth century to undo for womankind
that which Christianity has done f-er it and to say that
that which shall auth rise a man to dismiss his wife
shall not entitle the wile to dismiss her husband. (Loud
cheers.) If there is one thing more palpable that another
in reference to our religion, it is the coal that God Al-
mighty has placed upon the equality of man and woman.
(Hear.) Teen there is the question, is adultery to be
made a criminal offence ? Besides that and the other
questions I have touched upon, as for instance—are we
to have one central court only, and limit the facilities for
divorce to London and its immediate neighbourhood—
oms a whole questions when we touch upon
those subjects family o
ichwf e dealt with in the numerous
petition which have been presented to the house. (Hear )
it ie a much debated point whether we are bound to
frame the legislation of this house upon the law of
Scripture. That is a question upon which I will not
presume now to enter—it is far too solemn io ba dis-
cussed on an occasion like the present—but by this bill
we are treating with levity matters which de not belong
to our functions. I do not Teak of the c )nsciences of the
clergy, or the interest of the clergy. I speak of the re-
ligion we profess—(Dear)—and I do say it is a matter of
deep consequence that we should take care that in our
legislation upon this subject wedo not offer profanation t o
the religious faith ewe entertain, by dealing with those
sacred rites which came down to us with the authority
of the Apostles themselves, as we would deal with some
turnpike trust of board of health hill. (Hear.) Among
a'l parties in this house, where all classes are represented
it will, I am sure, be felt a matter of the utmost dn.

culty to deal with the religious part of this question.
I d,.) not assume that the religious part of the ques-
tion is to be conclusive in governirg rtur proceedings.
Whether it is or is not I do not say—but you have es-
tablished in this country a system of civil marriage--
apart from the spec'al sanction of the Christian rsligion ;
whether you choose to introduce as a counterpart of that
civil marriage a civil divorce and re-marriage, is a ques-
tion of the utmost importance and gravity. I venture to
say you cann-t pass this bill as it is, as regards the
clergy. (Hear, hear.) I make the appeal to the bowie and
the Government. Their own feelings must teach them
that some alttration must necessarily be made in the bill

in its religi ,us bearing. 4, but I must say we ought not
to be asked to deal with the important question involved
in this bill for the first time on the 24th July. (dear.)
The right hon. gentleman opposite has been found fault
with for raising the question of delay. I think he has
taken a wise and a judicious course. He did not wish
to commit himself to an entire opposition to the bill, and
he proposed that more time should be given for consi-
deration. I may be more opposed to the bill than he io
on some points, but there are others upon which I am
most atlX!0118 to keep my mind free, and I put it to the
house whether at this period of the session it is not fair
and just to raise the question of time, and to submit t iat
question in a r)rm distinct and separate from the merits
of the bill In such a form, then, when we go to the
division on the right hoe. gentleman's motion, they
would give no vote on the principle of the bill, but
merely upon the question whether they ought ri:;t to
have time for deliberation before they were called upon

to decide upon a question of such delicacy and difficuhy.
Mr. BOWYER *upported the motion of Mr. Henley,
which he thought must recommend itself to the wisdom,
good sense, and prudence of the house. He had looked
through the bill to see what it contained, and the result
was startling. There was one princirh of the bill which
was most dangerous, and that was the principle of the
dissolubility of marriage. The bill interfered with the
criminal law. It creat:qi a new offence. E.r the fir,t
time adul:ery was to be made a criminal offence. Then
it proposed to make a change in the ecclesiastical juri•-
prurience of the country, and to alter the must funda-
mental pornt of ecclesiastical law as it bore on the rela•
tions of the state. Again, it altered the civil law of
property in regard to the relations between husband and
wile. Again, the biq decided a most important religious
question; and that without the means for coming to a
decision. The bill, be contended, contained matter for
three if not for four bills, each of which would require

mature deliberation and discussion in reference to its
principle as welt as its details. But they had ad these
important matters affecting the relations of society, the
religious feelings of the people, and the criminal and ec-
clesiastical jerisprudence of the country jurealed toge-
ther in one bill, and that brought in on the 24th ef July.
He was quite convinced that all the days remaining of
the present session would be insufficient to discuss the
details in committee, if they.do not wish to legislate
rashly and dangerously. He urged upon the Govern-
ment to withdraw the bill, and reintroduce it early next
session. (Hear, hear.) For himself, he objected to the
principle of the bill, which he believed to be mischievous
and fraught with evil. Before deoiding such a question,
in which the divine law was involved, they ought to
assemble the church and consult it on the matter. He
thought, in not doing so, they were treating their church
(to which he did not belong) very badly. (Hear, hear.)
If they consulted the clergy they would; he believed, see
reason to doubt whether they were competent to pass
such a measure.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the speeches
which had followed Mr. Henley showed the propriety of
proceeding to the discussion of the bill. There was but
one great principle to be discussed in the bill—the great
and important question of the dissolubility of marriage
in this country as a part of the law of the land. (Hear.)
Whether that was part of the law of the land, or might
be part of the law of the land was the great question to
be discussed. That the present state of things was
most unsatisfactory no one could doubt. He believed,
notwithstanding what was stated in that debate, that
the opinion of the country was in favour of legislation
on the subject. If evils existed in an aggravated shape,
surely a bill which was calculated to meet them should
be promptly dealt with. He objected to the course
adopted by his right hon. friend, in interrupting the
Attorney-General when he was about to state the ree e
in favour of the bill ; and his right hon. friend had not
only interrupted that explanation, but with the skill of
a practised member of parliament, he had contrived to
send out to the country notions and ideas with regard
to the bill which were calculated to enlist an influential
class in the country aganst the bill. He admired the
skill of his right hen. friend—and he was well followed
up by the right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Oxford, especially as regarded the point
that the *existence of lacal courts was threatened ; and if
that notion got abroad, there would be enlisted against
the measure the influence of all those who were in-
terested in those local juriscirtions. He thought that
was not a fair way of meeting the nil, especially at its
present stage. But he (the Solicitor-General) would
assert that there was no foundation for the statement.
What was the ground of that statement by his right
hon. friend. He said that in three years there
were 101 matrimonial suits, and of these 48 bad
been decided in the local courts. But where they
were heard, how they were distributed, who were
the parties to them, and whether they were of the
lower orders who it was supposed were to be deprived
of the benefit of these courts by the bill, they die
not know. But it was raid that such was the fluc-
tuating state of the mind of the House of Lords with
regard to this measure, Meet it came to that house
without the weight which entitled it to consideration.
Now with all his partialities for the House of Commons,
he could not agree with the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone), who had made so light of the discussions of
House of Lords on this measure—these repeated discus-
sions following up the reports of commissions. The
right houourable gentleman said that this question had
not engaged the attention of the couutry, but he (the
Solicitor-General) would say that it had engaged the
attention of the country for years, and the discussions
upon it in the House of Lords, supported ag they were
by great lawyers, assisted by bishops on all ecclesiastical
questions—these elaborate and repeated discussions
in the House of Lords were not to be so lightly treated.
He trusted the House would not agree in the statement
of his right hon. friend, that the mind of the House of
Lords was not settled on this question. If the objec-
tion that there was no time this session to discuss the
details of the bill was to be taken, it ought to have been
taken after the principle was affirmed by the second
reading ; and the motion of his right hon, friend was at
least premature. Even the points of detail which
would require discussion would resolve themselves into
a very few, and even the skill of his right hon. friend
would not be able to extend them to more than six or
seven. He trusted the house would say that it was
right that the Attorney-General should be allowed to
lay the bill before the heuse, and then the hon. and
learned member for Dundalk might take the sense of
the house on its principle.
Lord J. MANNERS said that the Solicitor-General
and the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had made
a matter of accusation against his right hon. friend,
that be rose at the moment of which he had given
notice in Order to make his motion, and that it was not
right in him to have interrupted the statement of the At-
torney-General. But those hon. members had overlooked
the fact, that it was the avowed intention of his right
hon. friend to prevent the Attorney General from enter-
leg into his explanation of the bill. The bon. and
learned gentleman said that there was only one great
principle involved in the bill ; and admitting for the sake
of argument that that was so, yet they who thought with
him (Lord J. Manners) said that that principle was so
great and important, was so deeply and so nearly inter-
woven with the feelings of the people of this country,
that they could not allow it to be discussed at the fag-end
of an exhausted ses-ion. The hon. and learned gentl-
matt denied that there was any feeling in the country
against the bill, but that if there was any feeling, it was
rather in favour of it ; but he would chalenge the hon.
and learned gentleman to support his assertion by any
one pe'ition which bad been presented to either house of
Parliament. He (Lord J Manners) had that afternoon
looked over the list of petitions, and he could not find
one in favour of the bill—(bear, hear)—while numerous
petitions emanating from those who were best entitled
to the respectful attention of the house from their station,
their ability, and their virtue, bad not only been pre-
sented, but continued to be presented in increasing num-
bers every day. The hon. and learned gentleman had sail
that his right hon. friend stated that it was impossible
to diecass the bill in such a manner as to pass it. His
right hon. friend did not say that the government, which
was said to possess the most absolute majority in that
house since the time of Pitt, coal.) net force this or any
other measure down the throats of the house ; hut
his right hon. friend said that it was impossible, morally
and physically, that the measure could be discuseeti
with the care and attention to which it was entitled.
The hon. and learned gentleman said that no informa-
tion had been afforded by his right hon. friend with rega- d
to the local courts to which he had alluded ; but whose
fault was that, unless it was the fault of the Govern-
ment, whose dirty it was to be furnished with every iti-
formation on the subject ; but it so happened that, in the
report of the commission, it would be found that the cir-
cums'ances connected with every one of the 48 cases
alluded to were stated. It appeare that even the law
advisers of the Crown were not prepared, on the 24th of
July, fully to discuss this measure which they wished
the house to pass. If the Solicitor-General was deficient
in *information on the subject, it was surely open to
members of that house to say that they would not con-
sent to be dragged at the end of the session into a dis-
cussion on the most solemn subject which could occupy
the-attention of a Christian Legislature. Those who
thought with him said, take back your bill, and re-intro-
duce it in another session ; we do not wish to prejudice
it by discussing its principle, but we will not in this way
be forced, in the last moments of the session, into the
consideration of a measure which the other house bad
had ample time to consider, and the progress of which
showed in the most unmistakeable manner that they en-
tertained no settled opinion with regard to it. He said
take back the bill, and if they did not, they (the opposi-
tion) would assert their claim (and he believed they had
the power to make good that claim) not to be called on,
without due deliberation, to unsettle the law of Church
and State, and the law of marriage, by a measure which
was, in direct opposition to the revealed word of God.
Lord STANLEY said that it was somewhat curious
that those bon. members who asked the house for more
time for deliberation with reference to this measure,
were precisely those who implied that, as far as they
themselves were concerned, all deliberation was supei-
&tie. (Hear.) He could understand the opposi-
tion of those who said that they had not made up their
minds on the principle of this bill, and required time for
further deliberation ; but be could not understand
those who said that their minds were made up, and that
they intended to oppose the bill in every stage, urging
that they bad a right for further time for deliberation.
They were told that they were now at the end of the
session ; he wished that it could be said that they were
—(hear)--but looking to the state of the business before
the house and up stairs, he thought it would be found
that they bad sufficient to occupy them yet for several
weeks. Several committees which had been sitting on
subjects of great importance had not yet made their re-
ports ; several others bad not yet completed the evidence
before them' while there were still a number of election
petitions to be tried, and which it was not desirable to
postpone to another year. However anxious they all
might be to shorten the duration of the session, yet
their duty to the public ought to induce them to recol-
lect that there bad been an interruption by two months of
the ordinary business of the year. Then was it or was
it not a fact, that this measure had not been before the
public for a sufficient time to enable them to form an
opinion on it I He could say nothing of the reports of
commissions and committees, for though the subject had
been much disnnesed by these bodies, the result of their
discussions might not have passed into the hands of the
public. But a bill similar to this had been introduced
last year, which had been very fully discussed, and the
measure bad received a full discussion in the present
year, and had been amply considered by the highest
authorities in the law and the churob, and whatever
might be the ingenuity or skill of debate, he thought it
would be difficult for any one to offer any suggestion
which had not been considered in another place. The
main reason, however, which ho would press on her
Majesty's Government for persevering with this measure
wes, that it was one rather of principle than of
_detail.
That which lay at the bottom of the opposition to this
measure was a fundamental difference among members of
that house and the public with regard to the theory and the
subject of the measure, which declared that one broad prin-
ciple was in issue, and that was whether by the law of the
land marriage should be dissolved in any case or not.
That was the bread and general principle, and it was
one on which a majority of the house had already formed
an opinion, and it was not likely that that opinion could
be much changed by any debates on the question. It was
neither customary or convenient to go into a detailed
discussion of the principles of a bill which was not be-
fore the house, but as the subject had been alluded to, he
would say one word with regard to the opinion enter-
tained by the public on this question. It was stated that
a number of petitions had been presented, chiefly by the
clergy, in opposition to the measure, and on referring to
them, he found that the great mass of them turned Ile t
so much on the general principle as on one clause'of the.
billy whic4 imposed a particular duty on the clergy of

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 ths &et, that the
movement in opposition to the measure was more active
than that in suppert of it, that as explainable, simply
by the ciroumsiance that the bib hal been taken up by
the Government, had been passed through that portion
of the legislature where it was supposed to be mat in
danger, and therefore those who supported it had little
fear of failure, while those who were oppesed to it were
stimulated to more active exertions, even by the probe-
eility that these xertione would be unavailing. Look-
ing to the business of the session, it was etear 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
bad already been expended on this bile. 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 alter several months passed in
legislation. It was his belief that a large boty of persons
in the country would 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 not 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
d licate and difficult one ; and Sir James Macintosh, in
discussing it, said :—" To make the dissolution of mar-
riage alike accessible to al! is one of the objects to which,
in great cities and in high civilised communities, it is
hardest to point out a safe 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
he entertained the strongest objection—he meant the
clause which compelled clergymen whe entertained con-
scientious scruples on the subject to marry parties who
had been guilty of adiWtery. Such a proceeding woul
be towards them an intolerable tyranny, and to that part
of the bill he should give his moat uncompromising oppo-
sition. The house was called upon, not to decid 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,
be agreed with many men of great learning and autho-
rity that other portions were extremely ol jectiorable. 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-
Iwinced 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 na ere of their appeal ? Give ut
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 hon. and hafted
gentleman who had just spoken ? "Let me consult my
constituents"—who appeared to have been so indifferent
to the subject that they had not even communicated the.r
wishes to him. (Laughter.) The right bon, and learned
gentleman appeared desirous also of consulting his spi
ritual advisers, but how long did be rquire for the per
forrnance of that great conscientious duty I Then the
nGble 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 t 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
°beim v. r of our 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 refute 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 bishop, and those most
competent 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
Buckitighamshire—the candour of whose mind he well
kneir. That right hon. gentleman had deprecated the
dissolution of Parliament, because it would cause the loss
of a year's legislation. The right hon. gentleman did not
desire to be a true prophet in that respect, and her Maj esty's
Government had dons 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
eothiug but what- had been known to the law of Eng-
land for 200 years. Why, be asked, should the house
spend its time in deliberating whether it would delibe
rate or not ! If he had been allowed to -proceed, he
should have cencheied his remarks ling before the hour
at which they had now arrived. (A. laugh.) Ho was
confident that one-half the time which had been given to
the discussion of the Testamentary Bill would be more
than sufficient for a full and saiesif ctory discussion of
the principles involved in the present measure, and
trusted that they would agree to perform the work of
the day, and not in a spirit of indolence p istpoue its
consideration until another sessien. (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 penol of the session. It was quite impot-
Bible to proceed with the second reading at that late hour
(half-past 10 o'clock). The debate must necessarily be
adjourned—till when I 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 canie on. This debate cou'd not be rammed be-
fore Monday the 3d of August. How long did the noble
lord mean to keep them there, with their iatelhictual
faculties subdued and worn out by intersse labour and the
hot weather ? (Laughter.) There were several c
mittees sitting, and he fearlessly asserted that no man
was equal to such intense work in the present state of
the weather. (Renewed laughter.) This bill had peen
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
bebefit of the discussions elsewhere ; but the measure had
been so often discussed in the other house that the public
attention was only Sited on it after it came down to that
house. A document had been placed in their hands,
containing the prote.t 0500 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 bad 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-
cause a rich man could get a divorce and a noor man
could no-. (Hear.) Riches did not produce all 'blessings,
and perhaps it was an advantase 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
discussed sooner. If the other hence 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 had not been thrown away The Attorney-General
asked them to abandon their right of discussion because
the bil had been fully discussed elsewhere. Seeing the
universal feeling in the house against proceeding with
the bill—(no, no)—at all events a most strong feeling on
that side the house against.primeeding with the bill, he
appealed to, the noble lord at the bead of the Government
to withdraw it, unless he could ensure them four or five
consecutive nights for its discussion.
Viscount PALMERSTON—I roust say that the pro-
ceeding which has taken place this night is one of the
the most exhwerdinary that I ever knew, and one of the
greatest departures from the ordinary proceedings of this
house. (Hear.) It is undoubtedly common, ehtn ger,-
tlernea object to a bill on the second rea ring, 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 do not recolltct an
instance wheu those who objected to a bill, in teed 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 die.
cassia'', and Post-ad of hearing one eyllahle of the motive
on which the bill is founded, havecontended that it must
be postponed for a period beyond that to which the ses-
siou is calculated tu last. I Bey t hat 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 ltid 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 cuanifest,
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 would have
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 second reading in the usual way. The pretence
that therein not time to consider the bill is too shallow

to be listened to amornent. For whom is that delay
demanded? FJr those who wish to oppose the bill, and
have net had time to consider it and make up their

minds on the subject. Those who have heard the speeches
of Mr. Henley, Mr. Glad:tone, and Mr. Bowyer, will, I
think, be of opinion that they have deeply and maturely
cAlsidered 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 an.l
in all its details. Therefore thatfor them delay is demanded
is a pretext, mo,t 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, scehnew that the measure has been before the

not for weeks and months bat for years, and
that every man likely to give attention to the subject bag
now made up his mind on the nieasure. (Hear, hear.)
Bat the very argurnetts which they use agrjrit tit cis
i'rove their aseertio They tell us there are petitimigi
against the bill from 6,000 clergymen, from every part 0
the country. (Hear ) Are those petitions, then, Pg.
sented without any knowledge of the bill or cousiderra
Lion of its contents. (Cheers.) The only taaeraitel
appears to be the constituents of Mr. Napicr, whh-,bale
not thought it necessary to instruct him on this hill •
and he has not thought it necessary to ask them what
he should say about it. (Great ltughter ) Is the bill
new to the house ? Does any member who would be
likely to take lair. in this discessioe pretend to say thief
f
he has not watched the
.proceedings of the Hots"
Lerch; on the subject, which have been going on for g°
long ? Has not the bill been lying a full month on the
table of this house, giving opportunity to everyboliit°
examine it with the utmost minuteness, and to make°,l
his mind as to its principle and details ? And is the bl
of such enormous magnitude ? On the contrary, it h'l
comparativel short one, and its provisions' re contsine
in a comparatively small number of clauses. I say, the:
that the motion for delay is a shallow pretence, —4eto
those who make it wish to conceal their opposition f
the measure under the mask of delay ; and this is 0,10
that they are conscious public opinion is against 010
The country is for some measnre of this sort, andta
measure is one that ought t be considered and de'
berately agreed to. (Hear.) Teen Mr. Mains tells 0,
with that power which he possesses, and talea,
ing with that physical vigour with which he alw!la
a
addresses the house—that our bodies are exhausted, g"
crar minds are prostrated with labour. (Laughterr)
Why, sir, the hon, and learned gentleman is a by ,'°o
example to the contrary. He is one of those who sitth
thoroughly exhausted by the labours of the session
the
t
he is totally unable to consider one more bill. (Oefs
aa
But the honourable and learned member is PermZt
anxious to take advantage of that health and vigilef
which we are all so Os I to see him possess in some oto
sphere, and that may account for the impatience Wi
which be is looking to the termination of tb6e
session. (Laughter.) But I do trust that the ligo.111
will take a more serious view of these matters, and `gf
not be led away by appeals to the almanac:—that,„'
will not think that one month, or another, is onlY,‘;:d
able of being devoted to matters of importanca—tha'
will not be frightened by the names of Jely and AutO
—because this is a measure of great importance to wve
the country has been looking with anxiety and interso
—a measure that cannot be refused simply by teiliosq
that as we are at the end of July, and August is fgagt",,
proaching, we must suspend our deliberations. (eds:
hear.) The hon. member asked me bow long I pf°P,
that the house sit. I would propose that the b°osl
should sit as long as may be necessary to dispose of
business before Q. (Hear, hear.) I remember to hiAdo
sat in this house in the middh of September; bet
not conceive that it will be necessary to cmtihne,
session so long. But I say it is trifling with our °,l
tit
and with the great interests of the country to tolled
that, because it happens to. be the 24th of July, vieb'c
not able to take into consideration a measure to cy,
the country has been long looking with great ac Set
which is of the utmost importance, and which bas e
rr
occupied the minds of men who attend to the coast et
tion of these subjects. (Hear, hear.) If this bill fit,
now brought in for the first time, not having beer': 101 l
sented to either house before—if at this period 0' at
tve for the first time proposed a bill of such great in3P;Oll
ante, I should admit that the arguments against us 6e it
be possible. But we are only calling upon the hal':le
discuss a measure which has been well sifted
00
cussed in the other house. And when we are 0'11)0.
the other house has been unstable, and that they di
altered their minds on different details, I say 60°011
missions have paved the way for ns to consider dit
points, and have rendered it more easy for gentlto le
make up their minds upon them ; the argninel9
there upon particular pints, and that is i-oc!'
why gentlemen may more easily come to a C." ftr*
sion. I do therefore entreat the house not t°,6o
get the high duties impost d upon it by its constitt"
I do entrt at them to recollect that we sit here el,
merely to consider whether it is more convenfeot
journ on a day in July or a day in August, or whciiat;
hot weather er cold weather may be more co° ,te
with the intedectual exertions of the hon. and I`,:d!
member for \Val in ;ford, but to consider that t,,,"iftl?
grave and serious question, and that if we pilt %eft
measure simply because we do not choose to cehsidotir
the country will think that we are neglecting huaret Ole
and betraying the trust reposed in us, and ,t":", 1,
character of this house will suffer materially lie'
opinion of the public (Hear, hear.) I will n°'rshr
enter into the merits of the question. The Mtcf
General will be prepared, when he moves the Peep„e,„
reading of the bill, to state in detail all the
reasons on which the measure is founded. n°YO,
house Lear the ground on which it is proposed. tool
let the house shrink from the discussion of a vier 01 t
deeply affecting the interests of the country. -11.1 i,
all, do not let them shrink from the shadow of a P'ls
on which this motion has been supported—that 1/.6;17
hot time to consider a measure which those mall
objection show that they are fully prepared .to 10011
now or any other day which the house way Ch°
appoint. (Cheers.)

The house divided, and the numbers were--
For the postponement - • 130,j1
Against it
Lord PALMERSTON said that at this time o', :Jr,
it wool i hardly be lair to his hon. and learned fri'd.sll
to the house to go on with the seeani reading t°;'h ,
His hon. and learned friend would naturally :lot'',
state at some lenglh his view on the subject, anuoir
fore be proposed to take the second reading the
Thurbday. po
Mr MAL: -,clerti '

ALINS asked whether he was to un"-0-0$
that the Protiate and Administrations Bill would
00
proceeded with on TkLurAday?
Lord PALMERSTON said the governmeo"vid
take this bill first on Thursday, and the Probate
Friday.
.
The second reading was accordingly postpeni cl
fV4
ILLICIT DISTILLATION (IRELAND) 'hal, hh
Tuo house then went into committee on tbi3 otlvri
when a few clauses had been gone through, afterre
discussion, the Chairman was ordered .t°
progress.

SUPLY.
The replrt of supply wa P
s brought up and r,e°6131.01)'.
CANADA AND NEW BRUNSWICIC

DARIES
This hill was read a 0)4,1 time and passscl•
COUNTY COURT JUDGES' SALARIES
This Lill was read a eecond time, 1311''0i
OATHS VALIDITY ACT AMENDMENT dia
Mr J. A. SMITH postponed the second to
,„01,
this bill to Wednesday nrar. tw,
The house adjourned at twenty minutes to tfi° ow