The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-26 00:00:00

THE DIVORCE BILL.

(From the Times.)
The all-important controversy which, at this crisis
of England's fortunes, has been acitating and al-
most engrossing successively both Houses of Parlia-
ment for a quarter of a year, returned to its origin
nal battlefield in the Lords last night. The queis•
tion was the adoption of a certain number of
amendments which have been amply discussed in
the Commons, many of them previouslyin the Lords,
and, we take the liberty to add, out of doors also.
These amendments, though running in'o a conside-
rable number of clauses from the verbal alterations
entailed, are yet reducible into a few distinct and
particular alterations. Not only have they been
settled in an gelling, but, as appears by the sequel,
there was not a Peer who had nut already arrived
at a decided judgment upon them. However, this
is not the way in which religious and conscientious
noblemen, professing a monopoly of high feelings
and sound principles, undertake the c use of truth,
morality, religion, and Heaven. These things, it
appears, are not strong enough to stand on their
own ground, or to make way on their own merits.
Truth can only be advanced under false pretences,
the behests of Omnipotence can only be smuggled
into this vulgar realm, and common sense wriggled
in some indirect way int) an Englishman's under-
standing. Accordingly the lights of the Brisieh
nobility, to whom we are to look for the preserva-
tion of our faith and our morals, set about resist.
iug the Divorce Bill with the artifices more usually
observed in the witness-box, when suspicions-look-
ing personages are warding off too curious inquiries
into their proceedings. They had not time, they
said, to consider the amendments of the Commons.
They must not be hurried in so serious a matter.
The sincerity of this objection was proved by the
deliberate occupation of two hours before the de-
bate in a mere wrangle as to the persons most to
blame for a previous wrangle on Friday last.
When this was over, instead of then proceeding
to a quiet examination of each amendment with a
view to economise the hours sail to be
numbered, there ensued a vehement res'stance
to the discussion of the amendments at all this
year, on the ground that if they wera abused long
enough collectively there would not be time left for
taking them one by one. The Lords, it was said,
knew ro,hing about thorn, as Grua bubsequeuily
proved by a close scrutiny of their merits and an
evident decision upon them. Now, all this we ex-
pect in some places, on some subjects, and from
some persons. In the profane politics of the world
it is common enough for second-rate politicians, not
the first class, to make it their object to damage,
to obstruct, and to disable. They kill time and
drive business into a corner to get something out
of the confusion. But this sacrifice of time said to
be much needed, and this confusion so pathetically
deplored, were in this case the work of noblemen,
the 1i :silts of their age ; of men who deplore the de-
cay of manners, the blight of faith, the neglect of
high principles, and the dishonour of religion, and
who have an unfailing stock of solemn tunes and
pious grimaces at command for the abuse of this
journal. Of course, every speech that was made in
favour of more time did in faot consume it, and,
had their lordships not madertp theirmiuds already,
might have prevented them from doing so.
When half the evening Lad been lost in this way,
and Lord Redesdale's motion for throwing the bill
into the next year had been defeated, their lord-
ships proceeded, at last, with diminished time and
strength, to the several amendments of the Lower
House. They now quickly showed themselves quite
equal to the work, though it is possible they might
have done better if they had begun a few hours
earlier. The jurisdiction given by the Commons
to the Quarter Sessions has been rejected without
a division ; so on this point they have not re-
quired a twelvemonth to make up their mind,. It
must be admitted that the Lords are goad judges
as to the capacity of Quarter Sessions for this
purpose. The plea for a divorce by a wife against
the husband on the ground of " adultery com-
mitted in the conjugal residence" has been re-
jected chiefly on account of the looseness of the
phraseology. No doubt, many acts might come
equally under this legal description and yet be of
very unequal guilt, according to the circumstances,
the deliberation, and the habit. The other pleas
cf the wife against the husban 1 have been retained.
The wor is destroying the case of the husband
against the wife, on proof of adultery at any time
committed by himself, struck out by the Commons,
have been reinseteed by a small majority. We are
disposed to think the Commons will stand out for
this omission, as it certainly is not according to
common sense and common feeling that a man
should be tied all his days to an intolerably bad
wife, in consequence of some single and long-past
act of infidelity. It may be very proper in the
Bishop of Oxford to take this way of inculcating
upon men that they are as much hound to the moral
law as women, but other con=iclerations come in,
and we question whether there is a bi4hop Chri -
tendons, or has been for centuries, who would re-
' fuse to sit down in Vie company of a gentleman
who had been once unfaithful to his marriage vow ;
while there are few bishops in these days, at least
in this country, who would not objet to this degree
of familiarity with a woman so guilty. It is a point,
we conceive, in which the law must ccnform to the
feeling, and otherwise will so far bscome a dead
letter.

The amendment 'which seemed to restore the
action for damages--one of the great blots of the
existing practice—was warmly debated, and on a
division, in which proxies were used, was retained.
The obstacle to the entire abandonment of the
action for damages is the notorious fact that the
wife's-fortune has been sornetmes the chid attrac-
tion in the eyes of the adult erer,, anct, without some
check or other might become so even more than
now. Moreover, the, c +nrnotiest sense of jus'ice
will hardly endure b see the guilty enriched by
their crime at the expense of the injured, including,
perhapS, helpless ct)ildren. The species of action
instituted by the Cominiud amendment, and the
half civil, half criminal character of the damages,
may give rise to diffi.ulties requiring fresh
; but that does not impair the principle of
preventing, if possible, the guilty from obtaining a
mercenary profit ou their guilt, and saving the
innocent from ruin, in addition to misery and dis-
honour.,

The next discussion arose on the concession made
in the Commons to the feelings of those clergymen
who, for one reason or another, do not wipth t be
obliged to perform the marriage for those who have
been divorced. For our part, we think the conces-
sion a weakness. There are, however, very few
clergy who, after the consideration forced upon
them during tie progress of this measure, are pre-
pared to maintain that marriage iA indissoluble.
They mere:y alleg,, as the Bishop of Lon.lora very
trulystatFs, the disagreeableness of reading the ser-
vice for persons comparatively unworthy of it. This
is a natural and honourable repugnance, but it is
not one that the Legi,lature wed take itro account,
as unworthiness is only a question of degree. We
are aware .that some half•dozen zeal.,ts hive shut
their ears to reasoning and their eyes to the Bible,
and. rna'nt3ia that no crime, no form of law, can
dissolve the mysterious Marriage tie. But they
have been gener.dly,repudiated, even by the 9,000