The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-31 00:00:00

Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that this was a subject
which all could meet without party feeling of any kind,
and that it was one which interested every one equal:y
and exclusively in their doineelic relations. I. appeared
to him that this bid seemed to do badly, or rather not
at all, what it professed to do, and it attempted to d
what it had no right to de. The honeurairle gentleman
entered at great length into what he termed the hi,-
toricel part of the question and also its religious bf ariag,
t) show that by the latter, marriage was considered and
treated throughout the Scriptures as indissoluble,
and that it was treated so in early times by
the various nations of the earth, It was only
to gratify the avarice of the Roman Catholic priests
by the invention of dispensations that the indissolubility
of marriage was first hinted at, and at last it got to
such a height that the civil power interfered, and they
their turn became almost as bad. He ridiculed the
conscientious feelings of the clergy, when they could be
regulated by act of Parliament. He calls on the house
to reject the bill, as being contrary to the law of God
and subversive of morality.
Mr. LYGON opposed the bill on the ground of
authority, on the ground of reason, and on the ground
of experience. The authority of the reformatio legum
went for nothing, because it was drawn up in the reign
of Edward VI., and was rejected in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, when the reformation was cmesolidated.
Ophlions were disturbed in the former reign, but in that
of Elizabeth calm reason was brought to bear, and then
the report of the commissioners of E lward VI. was re-
jected. He contended that the bill by giving divorce
for adultery, would be the means of greatly increasing
adultery. He implored the house to pansy before it
sanctioned a principle which was calculated to produce
such a result. Tee experience of America, France, and
Prussia ought to be sufficient twrhow the evils which
were attendant upon such a principle. If they passed
the bill the day would come when they would regret
having laid a rude and hasty hand upon a subject
which was so sacred.
Mr. PULLER said there were two features in the
bill which he could not support in committee ; one was
the obligation upan clergymen to marry divorced per-
sons. Where seven thousand clergymen raid it was
against their consciences to perform such marriages, it
was no answer to them to say that for two hundred
years past there had been cases of privilege. Consider-
ing that there was a secular form of marriage which
guilty parties could avail themselves of, he thought they
ought not to put open the clergy the powers of this
bill. The other feature of the bill which he objected to
was the power given to the judge to fine an adulterer.
This was making a law for the rich, and he thought they
ought to inflict such a punishment on adultery as soul I
make it a discreditable crime. As to the indissolubitity
of marriage, he should mark his opinion on that subj set
by giving his hearty support to the second reading of this
bill. The act of adultery dissolved a marriage. Scrip-
ture said that no man should put asunder those whom
God had joined together. After an act of adultery man
did not put parties asunder ; they were put asunder by
their own act. The moment a woman committed adsl-
tery that moment she ceased to be a wife, and both the
common law and the ecclesiastical law of England pre-
vided that when a woman committed adul-ery her hus-
band was not bound to support her. Divorce on the
ground of adultery had been sanctioned from the earliest
times. It was sanctioned both in the o.cl and in the
New Testament.
Mr. WIGRAM said there were two reasons for his
supporting the hon. member for the University of Ox-
ferd—the one was that the bill was being argued at a
time of the session when it could not receive due con-
sideration, and he believed that until this session the
subject had not really been before the countiy. There
was no feeling in the country in favour of this bill to
justify its being forced on this session. Another reason
for his voting against the second reading was, that this
was a bill for dealing with the subject of divorce in Eng-
land, and he thought was the first time it was proposed
to legislate on the subject of divorce, and whenever an
alteration took place in the law upon that subject, the
law ought to be -an imperial one. If marriage were
made dissoluble in England, it ought to be made dis-
soluble in Ireland. They ought to deal with the subject
as a whole, and establish the uniform law, and in that
respect he thought the bill was ill-timed, and therefore
he should vote against the second reading.
Mr. HATCHELL did not think there was in Rig-
land any urgent call for any alteration in the existing
state of the law. Because there was a scandal connected
with the law, was it not possible to sweep away that
scandal without sapping and undermining the sacred ob-
ligation of marriage I The hon. member referred to the
opinions of Lord Loughborough and the Bishop of
Durham in 1798, on the evils which resulted from the
facilities for greeting divorce, and explained the laxity of
morals among the higher classes occasioned by the grant-
ing of divorces. He objected to this bit on the ground
that it would produce an increased desire among the
people of this country in favour of divorce, and this was
a circumstance which he would greatly deplore. It was
to the notion of the perfect indissolubility of marriage
that was due the great social comfort and happiness
which prevailed among the homes of the people of Ire-
land, the peasantry of that country looking upon their
marriage vow as one which must no more be broken
than the vow of a novice on entering into her life of
seclusion. He should feel it his duty to oppose the se-
cond reading of the bill.
Mr. BOWYER called attention to the fact that there
had not been a single petition presented in its favour,
while not less than 90,000 persons of all classes had re-
corded their opinions in opposition to the measure. The
bill proposed to be a porneman's bill, but that was a most
erroneous view of it, and the cumbrous character of the
machinery of the court to be founded would never admit
of the court being made applicable to the suits instituted
by the poor man. But before these considerations arose
a prior question was to be decided, which was whether
the divine law sanctioned divorce a vincul-) I This was a
theological question, and upon which the opinions of the
clergy should be taken after careful deliberation. The
measure was not a mere winding-up act, or one for
legalising partnership on limitejs liability, but it leas
one which was in direct opposition to the divine law,
and the passing of which involved moot serious
responsibility, and the gravest consideration. The
hon. member proceeded to refer to the evils which re-
sulted from fealty of obtaining divcrces, instancing the
state of things which existed in Prussia at the present
time. If the bill were passed, it would lead to universal
immorality, by permitting men to get rid of their wives,
and the principle of the indissolubity of marriage, if once
admitted, it would never be possible to confine the
grounds of divorce to adultery. The hon, member then
proceeded to argue at some length that the divorce a
vinculo was not permitted, either by the divine law, or
the Christian law, which was part and parcel of the law
of this country, and supported his opinion by quota-
tions from the Gospels of St. Luke, St. Mark, and St.
Mathew, and contended that the apparent inconsistency
bet seen the texts he had cited did not in the least de-
gree affect the validity of the argument, that the divorce
a vinculo was against divine law. If there was ever a
doubt as to the construction of the Divine law, and
surely no one will contend, on the other side, that there
was not a doubt, they ought not to compel clergymen to
act in violation of their consciences. He could not
agree with those who invested the law with infallibility,
He referred to the text "Give unto Cm,ar that which is
Caesar's, and to Wod that which is God's," as showing
that there limits to the authority of Cmsar. Where there
was a doubt they ought to abstain, and not to pass a
law which peradventure might be a violation of the law
of God.

Mr. MALINS, who rose amid cries of "Divide."
said he could not give a silent vote on this question. Ho
must admit that some difficulty:did arise from the course
the legislature had taken during the last century and a
half. No doubt when the Roman Catholic religion was
established in this country, and marriage was considered
inviolable, expedients were resorted to, not to dissolve
a marria,;;e, but to declare it to have been void from the
beginning. The Government treated this as so great
and crying an evil that they must press it on now in the
dog days, when there was no time to discuss it ; but
the average of divorces was not more than three in a
year. He thought the interests of society would be best
served by making marriage indissoluble under any and
every circuinetance. His hon. and learned friend had
said it was a great blot on the legislati in of the coun-
try that a rich man could get a divorce while the poor
man could not. If that argument were worth anything,
his hon. and learned friend ought to show that this was
a poor man's bill. But the court would be as high a
court as could well be constructed. No man under this
bill would be able to get a divorce for less than three,
four, or five huedred pounds. What, then, was the use
of calng it a poor mati's bill I (Hear ) The present law
considered marriage as indissoluble, for to dissolve it
required a special act of Partiament. But this bill would
hold out to all who were married that their marriage
was not indissoluble, fur a court was created expressly
to dissolve it. This might be expedient, but if so, it
ought not to be done at this period of the session, and
in such haste. But he wou'd not put it on such narrow
ground. He took the broader ground that it was best
for society that marriage should be indissoluble. In Pur-
port of this view, he quoted an opinion of Lord Stowell.
He contended that the passing of this law would hold
out an inducement to infidelity to the marriage tie.
There were many specious arguments in favour of the
bil! ; the principle, indeed, was undeniable, if the pre-
sent exceptional divorces were to be allowed, but he
objected even to them. If there was a strong feeling in
the house in favour of the bill, it had not been shown
in this debate. He complained of the course taken by
the Government in forcing on the bill at this period of
the session.

Lord J. MANNERS said they were told a few nights
back that there was ample time to discuss the bill—that
the house was full of life and spirit. But not one speech
had been made in favour of the measure which
showed that life and vigour. He maintained that the
arguments of the Attorney-General were sophistical.
The harried Attorney-General said that the bill had
made no change in the law of the land, which he after-
wards qualified by saying that it made no material
change. He said that the human dissolubility of mar-
riage was the accepted law of the land, but his own
speech showed that thehurnan indissolubility of marriage
was held till the time of Charles 11., but that was not a
favourable period in point of rtligion or morality. The
fact that since that period two or three divorce acts per
session had in auras way slipped through Parliament,
was no rea,on for passing a sweeping measure like this.
What struck him as the most painful argument was, that
the two houses together were to be considered as a sort
of judicial -tribunal. Was any judge able to refuse to
consider a ease, and kick it out of curt altogether ? One
of he bi,hbps had been asked why he did not oppose all
these exceptional acts, and had replied that he would d•
so for the future ; and a member of this house had given
a similar pled `e that oight. Coull that he if this was a
judicial procEedit g ? At this late hour he would not
enter into the Scriptural argument. A portion of this
house who were•unconvinced by the arguments of the late
Attorney-Chum], would clutmue of opinion that this

bill had reversed the law of God. It was said that the
principle of the bill was settled by the discussion in the
Hen ie of Lords, but he thought that, on a subject which
affected the daineetic happiness of the great mass of the
people, they were not to accept the dictum of any assem-
bly. Tit, re were indeed in the upper house grave and
reverend prelates, whose authority he was willing to ac-
cept, but their authority was against the bill. It wag
opposed to the Divine law, and also struck at the roots
of all human law. If the house was to reverse the 7th,
why not also the Bth Commandment I If they were to
allow the man who robbed another of his wife, for the
payment of a small fine, to enjoy full gratification of
his wishes, how could they maintain penal
establishments to punish the man who stole
his neighbour's worldly goods ? This measure
would encourage a woman who was disappointed in
marriage to believe that if she only had the bad courage
to commit herself entirely to sin, years of worldly happi-
nrss were in store for her. He referred to the frequency
of divorces in Pru4sia to show the evil effects of the law.
The Catholics were not sheltered from the evil effects of
the litv, for in one case for instance a man had been
married and divorced six times, and had six wives living.
Not only was the adulterer allowed to live in worldly
happiness, but also in worldly respectability. The
learned Attorney-General had said on the part of the
Government that he would never consent to relieve the
clergy from the terrible hardship of being compelled to
remarry persons under this act. It was impossible fer
any body of men to be more tightly bound than were the
clergy. More consideration was shown for anyether class
or profession. The rule was adhered to that persons who
had undertaken solemn obligations upon certain condi-
tions should not be burdened with obligations they
could not have foreseen. It bad been said that the clergy
must learn to obey the law, but be said the learned At-
torney-General ought to protect the cErgy. He regretted
to hear the taunts which had been thrown out againetthe
clergy, who in their petitions had merely prayed that, in
the event of this bill passing into a law, they might be
relieved from the onus of whet they considered adulter-
ous marriages. (The noble lord read ei'racts from seve-
ral petitions which had been presented as a confirmation
of his view of the case.) He thought that no claim
could be more just or more moderate than the claim
preferred by the clergy, and he did not see how the
house could resist it. Parliamentarily they might do
it, but morally it was impossible. (Hear, hear.) Twice
in the history of this country the clergy had been
driven from their livings, and been compelled to retire
into private life, but this was not a bill involving
the question whether episcopacy was an integral part
of the °lmre!), or whether one or two monarchs
should have the allegiance of the clergy, but
whether that body of men should give way to the lust of
adulterers and the tyranny of Paiiiament. (Cheers-)
Bdieving that this bill would introduce a fatal change in
the principles of the Church, and be fraught with danger
to the country, he should studiously resist it.
air. GLADSTONE moved the adjournment of the
debate.

Lord PALMERSTON expressed a hope that the
I house would come to a decision on the bill that night.
Mr. NAPIER supported to the adjournment. He
should coneider it to be his duty to state fully the rea-
sons upon which he should record his vote.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the adjournment 125
Against it
Majority —63
The motion for adjournment was therefore lost.
Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the house.
Lord PALMERSTON thought the house should be
bound by the majority jest announced. (No, no, and
divide.)
Mr. WALPOLE apprehended that all his right hon.
friend meant to imply was that a further discussion
should be taken upon a question of so much importance.
As far as he was concerned, he intended to support the
second reading of the bill.
Sir G. GREY thought he bad never seen a more lan-
guid debate. The right hoe, gentleman the member for
the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) might have
addressed the house at any period during the evening.
He was unwilling to divide again. (Cries of " Oh, oh,"
and " Divide, divide.")
After some further discussion, Mr. HENLET withdrew
his motion, and L )rd LOVAINE moved the adjournment
of the debate.
The motion was agreed to without a division.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
On clause 20, having reference to leases,
Mr. HENLEY objected to discuss a clause of such
great importance after the house had sat for 13 hours.
After some discussion, this and some subsequent
clauses were agreed to.
The Constables (Detached Parts of Counties) Bill was
read a second time.
The Boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland) Bill
was read a second time.
The County Court Judges (Falconer and Yates's
Salaries) Bill passed through committee.
The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act Amendment
Bill was read a third time and passed.
The orders of the day for the second reading of the
Adulteration of Food or Drink Bill, and the Sale of Corn
were discharged.
The Lords' amendments to the Registration of Long
Leases (Scotland) Bill were agreed to.
The General Board of Health Continuance Bill was
read a second time.
SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord NAAS moved that the House resolve itself into
committee upon this Bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE said thetas far as he personally was
concerned he was prepared even at that late hour (20
minutes to 2) to proceed with the discuasion of the de-
tail. of the Bill, but he thought that the subject was of
such importance that notwithstanding the decision at
which the house arrived the day befere, and the adhesion
of the Government to the measure, it ought not to be
paseed em hurriedly. His object was to ascertain cleaey
what was to be the position assumed with respect to the
remuneration of the civil servants. The Secretary of
the Treasury had announced on a previous occasion that
the financial effect of the measure would be by its direct
effect and its probable results an increase to the public
expenditure of from 200,0001. to 300,0001. a year, and
that appeared to him to be a serious matter. He wished
to remind the House that they had been sedulously told
that in voting for the Bill they were not voting for an
increase of the public burdens, and he believed that
the noble lord who had introduced the measure had
put it to the House that they were not called
upon to decide as to an increase of salaries to the
public servants, but simply as to the question
of the abolition of the deductions of the superannuation
fund. Now, what was the position of the house with re-
gard to the legislation proposed? Why, the bill, in point
of fact, rested neither upon the report of the Parlia-
mentary committee, nor upon that of the Royal commis-
sion, for the Parliamentary committee recommended a
uniform revision of the salaries of the public servants
with reference to the amount of deduction remitted, and
the commission looked upon the charge upon the revenue
as being of merely a temporary character. He asked
the Government for explanations of their intentions with
respect to the revision of public salaries.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was now 2 o'clock, and the house would meet again at
12. Therefore, without answering the righ hon, gentle-
men, he would suggest the postponement of this stage
of the ball, that there might be an opportunity of coming
to a clear understanding what it was the Government
was expected to do if the bill passed, because the bill
simply repealed the reduction without conditions.
Mr. AYRTON moved that the house do now adjourn.
Lord NAAS would not accede to that motion. Toe
time of the house was entirely in the hands of the Go-
vernment, and it was impossible for him to bring on the
discussion on the bill early in the evening. The Govern-
ment lead promised not to oppose its further stages, and
to postpone it, as suggested by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, would have the effect of defeating the bill
altogether. There was nothing in the bill to prevent the
Treasury revising the salaries as they might, think
proper. He hoped the Government would adher.e to
their promise.
Mr. HENLEY said they had many of them been

there 14 hours. The right hon. gentle-man (Mr. Glad•
stone) very naturally asked for explanations. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer intimated that to give those ex-
planations would occupy some time, and suggested the
postponement of the bill. That could hardly be regarded
as opposing it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. FITZGERALD complained that upon the
faith of the noble lord's statement that the Government
would not oppose the bill many of its supporters were
gone home. Advantage was to be taken of the hour of
the night to defeat the bill by delay. A s a matter of
justice and as a matter of honour the bill ought to be
permitted to go through cjmmittee, and if it were not
no dependence could henc forth be placed upon the as-
surance of the Government or of the leading members of
the house. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) should make his speech on
bringing up the report.

Mr. GLADSTONE said it was only fair that be should
know what the Government intended to do before the
bdi passed through committee.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
did not initiate any objection or any opposition. He
was asked a question, and he did not think it desirable
to go into the discussion at that hour of the night. To
prevent misconception and, perhaps, a reversal of the
policy once adopted by the house, of which there was
more than one example, there ought to be a clear under-
standing what the consequences of the bill would be, and
what course the Government was to take upon it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that as the question stood
it seemed to him a question of good faith—whether the
promise of the noble lord to his noble friend not to op-
pose the bill was to be kept. (Hear and No.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said he gave notice at 6 o'clock
that he should raise a discussion on the bill.
Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the bill should
be put off for another day.
Lord NAAS declined to accede to the suggestion.
The galltrie3 were cleared fora division, but none took
place.
On the question that the Speaker should leave the
chair. _

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked if was the intention of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce any clauses
into the bl ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.--As I
understand the decision of the house yesterday it Was
that the clause in the Superannuation Act should be
simply repealed.— The effect of that will be to add 5 per
cent„ to the salaries of those civil servants under that
Act who have wore than 1001. a-year, and 2. per cent.
to the salaries of those who have lass than that amount.
My right hon, friend (Mr. Gladstone) explained to the
house that as this was technically a repeal of a tax and
not a grant of additional salaries, the noble lord had a
right to make this proposition. Substantially, however, 11
it is a grant of additional salaries to the civil servants.
In that sense I take it, and if the Government were !