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 mere ,
available to the wealthy than to any other class, but
HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.) that was a misfortune which must always attend legal I
The LORD CRANCELLoR took his seat on the woolsack proceedings. He should feeL it his duty to oppose the
•
at five o'clock. bill.
THE EARL OF WESTMEATH AND THE Lord LYNDHURST said he had been unable to hear
" GLOBE" NEWSPAPER,
what had fallen from the right rev, prelate, hilt ho un-
The Marquis of WESTMEATH asked the indulgence
derstood 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, great objections to this bill out of doors. Many eminent
nexion with the Divorce Bill, which was set in con-
down for authorities is 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 reetilts of
called to au 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 ducat in the presence of the episcopal bench, but he
was dragged iu, 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 respect to the for adultery, that alone was a sufficient weight of
libellous part he 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 mitted that, accordin to tie Roman Catholic Church,-
honour, he took the present opportunity of stating that the marriage tie could not be dissolved, as the mar-
be would afford the parties an opportunity of sustaining ridge tie was looked upon as a sacrament. That cu-
them if they could. He would merely then confine him-
thorny, 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-
parts 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 38 years ago, and who did Protestant Church was that marriage was indissoluble,
even in the case of adultery, according to the law as it
not appear to be yet content. The statement is the Globe
stands.
was nodonbt made with the view ot vilifying his character. for evading the law and so had the The Roman Catholic Church had found means
Protestant Church
,
Their lordships might naturally say that this being a pri-
in this country, and hence private legislation had been
vats matter they had nothing whatever to do with it. It
had recourse to. It was impossible in a country like this
should, however, be recollected that the statements
to maintain-such a principle. According to this system,
were put forward in connection with the bill that was
to be considered b their lordships this evenin He instead of the law being. equal, it was .practically C3n-
y
therefore lost not a moment in stating when th g He
fined to the rich. It was, therefore, impossible that any
e
opportunity occurred in committee neon the bill he solid objection could be urged to the change which his
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 .
.;action to the change was, that the courts that would be
establishedied would uot.be available to any but the rich.
and unrefutable evidence. He would be prepared this,d because the proceedings would be simply
to show that they were founded on untruth, and were lib e
petition,denied
there would be no labyrinth of plead-
y ndtmaney
characterised by perjury and conspiracy, that .
idence would be viva voce. Nothing
lugusl'd and
they never could have been made in any court where
could be more simple. It was urged, however, that
the testimony was viva voee, bat as it were behind the
opferstLis gat a distance could not avail themselves
curtain, in the way.the evidence was taken is the code-
new tribunal. The answer to that was that
siastical courts. ifeleoped the noble and learned lord's
local authorities would be empowered to hear the
bill would entirely abolish the system.
. 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.
ROW:PUGH,
and there such a law was administered with the greatest
Lord PANMURE said he did not feel mach 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 b 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
have a portion of our troops ready to embark acid degrading violence. Would not a cheap legalremedy
for [China, it had sines then been arranged in such a case tend much to diminish that state of immo-
er
that four of those regiments should embark early in rality. -Let them look at Scotland. Had any immorality
ciaence of of
next month for India. The reason why this delay took ben
law produced?' there in
No, it had beenconse directly th the extensione
reverse. Last
place was to prevent the troops arriving in India during
year he objected to this measure because it did not go far
the unhealthy part of the year.
enough. The measure still was open to that objection in
THE CONTINUOUS SERVICE.
his mind. He objected to the principle of the bill from its
Thal TALTIO r asked whether it was the intention of
great inequality between the sexes—men made the laws
her Majesty's Government to discharee the seamen in
and women were the victims. The man cool? commit
her Majesty's Royal Navy entered and engaged for con-
tinuous service ? adultery to any extent, and the wife was left without any
Earl GRANVILLE said there was not the slightest
remedy. The husband might be covered with every spe-
cies of infamy connected with adultery, and surelythe tri-
intention of tweaking faith with the British seamen.
banal that was to be established ought to interfere in
He thought the propositions that had been made to
such cases. It was said if this were so the tribunals
the seamen in the royal navy, on the contrary, were
would be inundated with applications ; but they might '
very beneficial. •
rest assured that such applications would not be had re-
DIVORCE ,AND ?vIA.TRIKONIA CAUSES BILL.
course to except after a long course of injury. He ap-
Lord -LYNDHURST having explained certain cir-
pealed to the noble earl opposite upon this subject. In Scot-
s cunustances connect:al with a petition that had' been
land the woman equally with the man could apply to the
transmitted to him•for presentation to their lordships,
law, and no inconvenience whatever had resulted from
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second
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.
so stated that the great principle he had endeavoured to .
Augustine put the case of the wife upon the same footing
adhere to in the bill which he proposed was the indisso-
as that of the husband. He made no distinction between
lability of the marriage tie, except in the ,most extreme
cases. The noble lord proceeded to refer to the early no-
the cases. Let them recollect that they were legislating
tions of the Church of Rome with respect to this iodise°.
against the other sex. They were men legislating against '
women. As to the weight of authority upon the subject,
lubility of marriage, but under certain circumstances it
it was in favour of the views which he advocated. When
Wits found impossible to adhere to the principle, such,
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 to be unanswerable—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 had eteed godfather to a cousin of his tect, and never to desert a woman. No promise could
wife. At the time of the Reformation the marriage was be more sacred; and if one of the parties broke the con-
tract, it should not be thought any longer applicable to
con-
not looked upon as it had been in the enure, of Rome, as
the ether. What were the objects of marriage? They
a sacred sacrament, and several canons of differences ne-
were three. The first was the procreation of children,
tween the parties were laid down by the early reformers
and bringing them up in the fear of God ; the second
as rendering divorce attain this. Although those canons
had never become law, still the doctrines were shortly was stated to be to guard against sin ; the third was the '
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 malichius abandonment of the
a divorce a mensa et thoro obtained by the Marquis
woman-. Would they say that, under finch circum-
of Northampton in 1550. Having obtained this de-
s
gree of divorce, a question arose ae to whether the stances, she should be bound to an unfaithful husband
But it. was said that it was doubtful whether this was
parties were in a position to agree to enter into the
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
quis had taken upon himself to settle the case, and
over again, at the time of the Reformation, and it was
again Married, and an act of Parliament was afterwards decided that adultery afforded a fair ground for divorce.
,
Nor was this only the opinion of the ecclesiastics ;
passed legalising the marriage. The noble and learned
lord then referred to the caee of Lord de Roos, Countess even the most learned jurist of the Continent—Grotius
of Macclesfield. and other cases of divorce which had oc- —had .held the came 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
nor, pronounced in favour of the came
take this
view of the else he should feel it his duty himself to
the ground of the adult-dt,ry of the wife. During the last
quarter of that century the number of cases increased to take up the matter. A man married a woman, lived
about three in a year, and during the half of the present with her a short time, Spent her money, and then aban-
century the numbers were about two in each year, all doned her—she might receive more money, her husband
might spend the and then abandon her again. This
of which, with few exceptione, were founded on cases of
had often happened. There was a case well known in
adultery on the part of the wife. There was no doubt
the aenals of law—a young girl of 15 years of age carried
therefore, that there was something like a feeling of the
propriety of givin reiress to the man whose wife had off, and partly by force and partly by persuasion coin-
g
committed adultery. The question for their lordships
pelted to a marriage. The man was tried for the abduc-
was whether this was a feeling which sheen receive Lion, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, but in the
sanction at the hands of the Legislature ? 'rue present
opinion of the judge the marriage could not be dissolved.
state of the law had been often complained of, and in Tee lady was made a ward in Chancery, the two years'
imprisonment expired, and the man left and was never
1850 a commission was directed to Lord Campbell, Dr.
Lnehlogton, Lord Broughton, Mr. Walpole, Vice Chan-
heard of afterwards. This was not an isolated case. Ho
colter Wocd, Mr. Bouverie, and Lord Redesdale to in- would appeal to the noble lord' opposite as to the effects
iiire into t after
,of the law of Scotland. By that I.iw desertion dissolved
e whole sub ct, a nd that c mmission,
qhe i
the most careful inquiry, recommended that whereas the marriage. Much had been said about the matter
practice had grown up which entitleri a man to api ivate in that country, and the lawyers there had decided
bill in the event of the adultery of his wife, it would be that desertion and adultery were scriptural causes
for divorce. He was astonished at the differences
better that the law should, by means'of a competent tri-
between the law in Scotland and in this country,
banal, do that as a matter of right for those who had legi-
though under the same Government and the same Legis-
timete ground of complaint which they now obtained by
latnre, and they brought in hills to as-imilate the laws
special privilege. This wee what he proposed to adopt.
of commerce of the two countries, but not those which
The bill would provide that the court should be cointi-
affected the families of the whole empire. A man in
I
toted of the Lord Chancellor, one of the Chief Justices,
Scotland might be divorced, might come back with a
and the proposed judge of the court—the new Court of
new wife, and his first wife in this ceuntry might sue
A Probate. t: the close of the last century, in 1795,
for a restitution of conjugal rights, and this in the same
Lord Loughborough established certain standing orders
with reference to divorce bile, and under one of these country. His strength prevented him saying then what
standing orders no divorce bill could be entertained nc-
he meant to say on the criminal part of the bill ; he
less there were laid upon the table the proceedings which must reserve that for another opportunity. His noble
f
the injured party had taken in one of the Ecclesiastical felons said that an action for criminal conversation was
Courts, and before a court of common law in an action not to be brought till after a divorce ; they were to have
t
for criminal conversation. Toe effect of this require-
he divorce first, the criminal conversation after. So
that, however criminal the seducer might be, no action
meat was that all these disgusting seta is had to be in.
could be brought against him till a divorce bad actually
vestigated on three different occasions. There were many
grave objections to this course, among others the enor-
taken place. There were minor matters besides upon
which he would not then enter, but he would state this,
mous expenses which it entailed, and which placed the
remedy out of the reach of-all but the most wealthy par that if he had postponed the ndention of these amend-
ties. Ile proposed that but One inquiry should be gods
went they might have decided the principle of the bill
into, and that the proceedings should be viva voce evi- without them, but he felt these things to be of so much
dent©, and that before a jury instead of by the compli-
importance that he had brought them forward in order
caredmode adopted in the ecclesiastical courts. He pro-
that before the committee came on their lordships might
posed that any husband complaining that his wife had have an opportunity of carefully considering them. If
they were moved in committee, he trusted to their sense been unfaithful should he entitled at once to a decree
which should give him the same rights as
Parliament now gave, the hull s. id, of ce ' arse showing the present law by a careful consideration of the argu-
that he had not et the tame time been guilty of a n offence ments which he had brought forward.
of a similar kind to those of Which he complained. It Lord WENSLEYDALE would not oppose the Re-
lied been contended by many persons that this bill did cord reading of the bill, but heohad_his misgivings be-
not go far enough. Tnere 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 mime wider view easily for persons resident in London. Again, a man
of the latitude which ought to be given. He believed it who did nut like to live with his wife would take this
would be as impossible as unwise to extend the licence eety 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 bad been the course of the house) to grant to the bus- take place, but he could reply that the character of the
band with the divorce the power to marry again, but a two countries was essentially different. Still, as parts
similar-privilege was not accorded to the wife. It was of the bill were very valuable he should not oppose the
possible for a wife to pardon a husband, but hardly poi- second reading. His noble friend's objection that an
Bible for their lordship to conceive the case of a husband action for criminal conversation would only hold after
pardoning his wife, and therefore the instances have been the dissolution of the marriage, was a very powerful one,
exceedingly rare where divorces have been granted in the and he sincerely hoped that this provision would not be
case of the adultery of the husband, and they had been adopted. With this explaaation he should vote for the
ik•en 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
and learned lord who had just now sat down, that there
wife, incest, bigamy, arid cases where adultery had been
coupled with such gross cruelty ordesertfon, as would with- was so much good in the bill that he shotild not oppose
out the adultery entitle the wile to a divorce a enema the second reading. Stiil he objected to the facilities
et thoro. He believed that this course would be one most given to those who were divorced under.the bill to marry
agreeatle to the feelings of the people of this country, and again. The adulterous parties under any circumstances.
it he entertained any doubts on the subject, those doubts unless some collusion was proved to the satisfaction of
would be entirely removed by the discuetioa which bad the Court, were by the bill allowed to marry again.
taken place some short time since in the Prussian Chem- Nothing could tend more to immorality than such a
hers on the subject of the divorce law. ' When the bill clause. Suppose that two persons had committed
Which he now introduced had on a previous occasion adultery, that they were to marry, and that after mar-
passed' the house, a clause was introduced by the Bishop ridge a second ailultrry took place, was it for the interest
of Oxford, which prohibited the ado force from ever mar-
of morality to allow a further marriage? If a man had
lrYaidig again with the adultrese. He (the Lord Chancellor)Chancellor)seduced a woman and then debauched her mind, there
were no grounds for him to demand a divorce in case the
carried
his solitary voice against the clause, and it was
' ealmost by acclamation by their lordships, and he woman again committed adultery. He wished for some
thought then, and still thought, that the clause was one explanation of clause 19, which allowed three causes
clause
would be most mischievous' in its tendency. A under which a woman could demand a divorce.
The first
eeheee to this effect was always introduced in the was the plea of incestuous adultery. Now if a man corn-
private divorce bills, but it was invariably struck out mated adultery with his wife's sister, would that permit
either in the committee of the house or by the House the man to override the law of England and to marry
of Commons- With respect to the propriety of his wife's sister ? Was he to be in the position of a many
tahllaotwtihneg abeetsitocnesuef criin. con, still to continue, he thought that had not married, or of one whose wife had died ?
adopt would be to leave theie ac- He suggested that a power should be given to the courts
tions to their fate. Atorid inasmuch as these actions were to restrict marriages in such cases.
now required to be brought „previous to obtaining the The Duke of NORFOLK was astonished to hear the
divorce, he proposed that they shouhl only-be brought in noble and learned lord assert that councils and popes bad
consequence of or after thated7
main
had -been obtained, granted dissolutions of marriage. He did not believe that
So far with regard to the
widiect of the bill with re- the noble lord could cite a single direct case of any such
gard to a divorce a vinculo. regarda to a divorce a dissolution either by a pope or a general council. It was
masa et thoro be proposed to add cause of testi. a universal opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that
fixation, and that was desertion. It oft n that marriages were indissoluble. He would, therefore, ren-
d man deserted his wife without reasonable'ifeadeause, and der every assistance in throwing out the bill.
after a time he came back, and if the
tueany pro- Lord. CAMPBELL said that the house would receive
petty be took it. He proposed to give in°
power .of divorce a mensa et thoro, and
thelliinaheeoafse a with respect the efforts of the noble duke to throw out
de"
, the bill, because by his faith and that of his ancestors
a
sertion he fixed at two years. He proposed that after marriage was a sacrament. But their lordships were in
decree a mensa et thoro a married woman should been- the majority a Protestant assembly ; it was their
titled to any property she might acquire as though she opinion that by the words of the Divine founder of
were an unmarried woman. This would,- by some per their, faith marriage was dissoluble in cases of , adul-
6hrts, be thought a very imperfect remedy. There were I tors,tetwand it was only by quibbling that these words were
those who advocated this subject ot divorce who wishedewxpleined away. His noble and learned friend
of go much further. If he should have succeeded in the cont ensleydale) bad said that the provision was
present measure in improving the law as it at present contra'. to the lew of England, and that by that law
atood, •he should think he had accomplished much, al- marriaey
though he might still leave more to be done. The object tlety, ge was indissoluble. This Was a mere legal sub-
ety, spoken by a lawyer,
of the bill
.was to do away with the anomaly of private man sense and to
legislation for the benefit of thewealthy only. With law of Englandto fact. For 200 years marriage by the
had been
these few observations Y. dissolved in cases of adultery.
he asked their lordships to give a' By the practice of
the law any husband who could
second reading to the bill. prove adultery on the part of the wife, could demand
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said hitherto tho a divorce. He bad been at the head of the commission
attempts to remedy existing evils had ledtoof the appointed to, in ui • q re into the state of the marriage la
w,
evils in the present system at this many
.
moment existing. He i and tbey were necked by the •
Firstly
bad therefore always felt great doubt '
upon the subject of i sent system. came the a • aunt for criminal con-
legislating • with regard to matrimony. Th h 1 then suit in •
ey ad one great versation, a
guide in 'the matter, and that - ' was the divine law. He petition to the House of Lords, and then a law bad to
believed that when the marriage tie 'l
OM
was fixed no human be passed by both houses, Lately the House of C ,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.