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

which had been established for the last two centuries.
Before the Reformation, marriage was held to be indis-
soluble, but when it was no longer held that marriage
was a sacrament, a committee was appointed, a d y
their rep ,rt marriage was held to be dissoluble in cases
of divorce. Unfortunately, however, the ecclesiastical
tribunals were left in full force, and this matter was left
under their control. It mattered not, therefore, whether
the functions in reference to divorce were discharged
by a body calling itself Legislative, or by two or three
persons sitting is a court of justice. The nature of the
theory remained the same, whatever may be the
denomination given to it. It was essentially a judi-
cial proceeding, as the proceedings in Parliament
had al ways been judicial, the only difference being thet
it was now proposed to discharge the duties by means
of an ordinary court of justice. The law had been admi-
nistered by the House of Lords for 150 years, and it ha I
always been open to parties to apply to Parliament for
redress. Now, it was impossible to conceal from them
that there had always been a law of divorce, well under-
stood, and that under that law marriage had been capa-
ble of being absolutely nullified. It has been too much
the habit to speak of marriage as by the law a thing in-
disputable, and when it was known that they were about
to establish a court of divorce, it had been thought that
a new principle —anew rule--a new law, was about to be
introduced into the law of England. Now, what he
wished to show was, that this law had prevailed during
the last 150 years in the House of Lords. In the course
of the application of that law, ithad been laid down that
there were circumstances under which a marriage was
not indissoluble. For instance, a man having an alul
terous wife might obtain a divorce, but not if there bad
been any collusion, or connivance. The first step was to
obtain a decree from the ecclesiastical court a menu et
thoro, and bethen might obtain from the House of Lords
a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. But in the case of a
woman who could not obtain a divorce for simple adul-
tery, and precedents-bad been laid down providing that
a divorce might be obtained where there was adultery,
combined with incest, or under circumstances of cruel'y,
the only change this bill proposed to make was to enable
a woman to obtain a divorce for adultery combined with
malicious desertion, and the transfer of the hearing to a
judicial tribur al, where the circumstances might be more
conveniently investigated. The form of procedure would
be divested of all those circumstances which bad consti-
tuted the main objections to the present administration
of the law, so that while the law remained pretty much
the same as it was, the way of getting at it would be
greatly facilitated. He would now proceed to consider
some of the religious arguments which had been adduced
against the principle of the bill, particularly in reference
to the question whether the persons who had been di-
vorced might marry again. Shortly after the Reforma-
tion a case arose which would ilustrete one branch of this
question—namely, the case of the Mayene, of Northamp-
ton, from which it was clearly established that a divbrce
waa a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. This, therefore,
being the recognition of the law as it was at the early
period of the Reformation, be need not ref,r them to the
host of writers who hal confirmed and supported it, but
he might repeat that for two centuries that principle
had been acted upon in the House of Lords, and after
the bills were passed they came down to the House of
Commons for confirmation. He did not believe that
since the case of the Duke of Norfolk any bishop had
objected to divorce on the grounds now taken by those
who were opposed to the bill, namely, that by the law of
England marriage was indissoluble, and that too on
Scriptural authority. If that were true, every dissolu-
tion of marriage which had been sanctioned by Perlis-
went was a violation of the Scriptures. (Hear, hear.)
If the house rejected this bill, it would condemn every-
thing that had been done during the last 200 years, and,
if it acted consistently, must strike out of the statute-
book everything relating to the present law of divorce—
(Hear, hear)—but if they admitted the principle of di-
vorce, he held that they were bound to give their sanc•
tion to a plan which would render more easy the ad-
ministration of the law. (Hear, hear.) His attention
had been directed to some of the pamphlets which had
been written on this subject, and which, for the most
part, urged the authority of Scripture as an insur-
mountable objection to this bill. One of these was at-
tributed to no less a distinguished person than the
author of the "Christian Year," another to a distie-
guished writer in the Quarterly Reirioe, and another to
a writer who was known as well for his legal as his
Scriptural knowledge. To these he would briefly allude.
By the Jewish law adultery was not the occasion of
divorce but of criminal punishment—it was punish.
able by death, and therefore the vinculo ma.
trimonii was more effectual in those days than
now. He did not think that the house would be led away
by arguments based upon such a variety of inconsistent
and contradictory interpretations. But what was it which
really gave force to matrimony, and which made it so
highly esteemed in the Roman Catholic Church? It was
that solemn assurance, " that in the beginning God cre-
ated male and female : male and female created he one ;"
and, again, that " a man should leave father and mother
and cleave unto his wife, and they two should be one
flesh." That he 'believed it was that gave force to the
holy and Christian character of matrimony. But what
was it that destroyed that holy connection I Clearly,
adultery. That it was that severed the sacred bond, for
it was clearly defined by Scripture as a dissolution of the
sacred tie. (Elear.) He had thus adverted to the scrip-
tural argument because they had heard so much of it an
another place, and were likely to hear so much of it
again. (Laughter.) His first opponent would be the hon.
and learned member for Dundalk, and therefore he might
be pardoned for alluding to the decrees of the Council of
Trent. [The Attorney-General read extracts from the de-
crees of the Council of Trent, showing that, according to
the canons oftheChurch of Rome, marriage was not held
in all cases an in liasoluble tie.] He hoped, under the
circumstances, they would steer clear of the scriptural
difficulty, and be would advise them to adhere to that
interpretation, which had been accepted, not only by the
Church of England, but by all the Protestant Churches
of Christendom. Dismissing those topics, be came to ano-
ther which was a fruitful source of objection, viz., inter-
marriage of the guilty parties, and whether such mar-
riages should be left to be solemnised in facie ecclesies.
They had heard that 6,000 clergymen had petitioned
that such a burden should not be laid apex: their con
sciences. But those reverend gentlemen had submitted
to the law, in times past, and could they fail to regard
it as a conscientious objection when there were only
two or three cases, and contend that it was so when
the cases were likely to be more numerous I He could
not conceive anything more danger 'us ti-an to permit
the clergy to be relieved from the obligation of obeying
the law, and while the Crown was supreme, the clergy
must submit to the law of the land, which was the true
principle of the connection between the Church and the
State. The Church was bound, therefore, by the obli-
gation of the law. No doubt, therefore, could exist of
the desirability of requiring from the clergy absolute and
impliclt obedience to the law ; and if it should be the law
when this bill passed—as it had been the law hitherto—
he trusted that the House of Commons would never en-
tertain. the question whether or not a portion of the
clergy should be exempted from its olvervance. But
there was another point to which he might advert. This
bill would abolish actions for criminal conversation ; and
it had been asked what was to be substituted for it. He
knew a case in which a woman who had property ob
tained a divorce, and the family lost that which was
their sole dependenc-. In such a case the court would
have power to give compensation, or to make provision
for families. With regard to the constitution of the
court itself, it would be very simple. After a prelimin-
ary inquiry, the case would be heard before the Will
of the Lord Chancellor and one of the
Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas,
o
eoqfutehre. The tribunal would accomplish ail
cChroi
teu hfr
judgest
e, consistingxE,,
the objects desired in this investigation, and render col-
lusion and connivance between the parties impossible.
The other portions of the bill dealt with the proceed.
ings heretofore confined to the Ecclesiastical Courts, re-
lative to divorce a rnensa et thoro, which was nothing
more than regulating the terms of a mutual separation,
and the name of the proceeding would be changed from
the improper term of divorce to that of judicial
separation. By the bill the hard earned gains of a
wife separated from her husband for adultery or cruelty
on his part would be protected, and the savage
character of our laws with regard to husband and wife
in that respect would be remedied. (Hear.) The hon.
and learned gentleman referred to the three periods when
the question of the indissolubility of marriage was dis-
cussed in that house, on each of which occasions they
negatived that principle, viz., in 1770, when a bill was
brought down train the House of Lords ; about fifteen
or sixteen years after that time, and finally in 1800 ;
and he said that it should be borne in mind in discussing
the measures now before the house, that the house inva-
riably struck out of all divorce bills the clause prevent-
ing the dissolubility and re-marriage of the parties. Hav-
ing dealt with the matter in that way for upwards of
150 years, it was desirable that the house should bow to
precedent and adopt that principle by affirming the se
cond reading of the bill.

Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved the second reading of
the bill that day three months. On a former oecason,
when the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford.
shire brought forward his motion for the delay, the right
hon.
gentleman and those who supported him were re•
proached with preventing the learned Attorney-General
from stating to the house the principles of the bill. The
hon, and learned gentleman bad now availed himself of
that opportunity. He (Sir W. Heathcote) had listened
attentively to the learned gentleman's statement, but he
had been unable to discover that the bill was based on
any principle whatever. The learned gentleman had
however assumed throughout his speech what it was
possible for him to prove, that this bill only dealt with the
existing law of England in reference to marriage and di-
vorce, but that it put the remedy in a different shape.
The bon, baronet contended at considerable length the
indissolubility of marriage, and the hardship it would
be on the clergy to be subjected to pains and penal-
ties for not performing an act which iu their con-
sciences they considered repugnant to Scripture. He
also condemned the establishment of the proposed Divorce
Court, the powers of which would (if the bid were passed)
at no distant period be conferred on our county courts,
which would then have the effect of introducing a state
of things in reference to marriage *deader to that now
existing in Prussia. He consioered this a qnestioe of
great importance, so great that a form of government
sank into insignificance in comparison with it. It was
a measure that affected the sanctity of the homes of every
person in the country—the purity of woman and her
equal position in the social scale. This the Government
were about to accomplish by a-legislative enactment con.
trary to our religion, and carry it into effect by the
wholesale persecution of its ministers. (Hear, hear.)
He earnestly called upon the lioue, to. support his
amendment from a conviction that it was not in a pa-i-
-tion t 3 legislate on the subject. By deferring the mea-
sure until next seseion hon. members would be able to
give their undivided attention to it during the recess, and
be in a better position at the commencement of a new
session to enns der and discuss iss various provisions.
CUBllriteconfieditTfi..mndaieut.