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

r FIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 313 857

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 equally
and exclusively in their domestic relations. It appeared
to him that this bi►l seemed to do badly, or rather not
at all, what it professed to do, and it attempted to d
what it hid no right to do. The hon-urable gentleman
entered at great length into what he termed the hi--
torical part of the question and also its religious be axing,
tl 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
in their turn became almost as bad. He ridiculed the
conscientious feelings of the elergy, when they could he
regulated by act of Parliament. He called on the house
to reject the bill, as being contrary to the law of God
and subversive of morality.

Mr. LYC'cON opposed the bill on the ground of
authority, on the ground of reason, and on the ground
of experience. Toe authority of the reformatio legum
went for nothing, because it was draw❑ up in the reign
of Edward VI., and was rejected in the reig❑ of Queen
Elizabeth, when the reformation was consolidated.
Opinions 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 Edward 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 pause before it
sanctioned a principle which was calculated to produce
such a result. The experience of America, France, and
Prussia ought to be sufficient to show 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 said 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 upon 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 would
make it a discreditable crime. As to the indissolubitity
of marriage, he should mark his opinion on that subject
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. Tee 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 pro-
vided that when a woman committed adultery 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 Old and in the
New Testament.
Mr. WIGRAM said there were two reasons for his
supporting the hon. member for the University of Ox-
fcrd—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 country. 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 Eog-
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 t 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 graating divorce, and explained the laxity of
morals among the higher classes occasioned by the grant-
ing of divorces. He objected to this b'll 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 indissolubiltty 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 poor,man's bill, but that was a moat
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 vinculo / 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 limited liability, 'but it sas
one which was in direct opposition to the divine law,
and the passing of which involved most serious
responsibility, and the gravest consideration. The
hon. member proceeded to refer to the evils which re-
sulted from facility of obtaining divorces, 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 St. Luke, St. Mark, and St.
Mathew,in
Gospelscontendedof
that the apparent inconsistency
bet n
had cued did not in the least de-
gree validitye of the argument, that the divorce
a vinculo
affectfe h
against divine law. If there was ever a
ec
turiom the
a w n thead s
the
texts
doubt as to the construction of the Divine law, and
surely no one will contend, on the °tilt r 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 intallibility.
He referred to the text "Give unto Ca) ar that which is
Caesar's, and to God that which is God's," as showing
that there limits to the authority of Caesar. 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. He
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 marriage, 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 circumstance. His hon. and learned friend had
said it was a great blot on the legislation 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 hundred pounds. What, then, was the use
of caling it a poor man's bill (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, for 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 baste. 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 sup-
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 tis.
There were many specious arguments in favour of the
bill ; 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
bad 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 learned 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
he land, but his own
gsolul.ility of marriage
)
change. He said that the human dissolubility of mar-
riage was the accepted ia:'? ()f
speech showed that thehuman ins..
was held till the time of Charles If , Du?: that was not a
favourable period in point of religion or inort,2"Y. The
fact that since that period two or three divorce :la: per
session had in soma way slipped through Parliament,
was no reason 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 rei:" to
consider a case, and kick it out of court altogether ?
of he bishops had been asked why he did not oppose all
these exceptional acts, and had replied that he would do
so for the future ; and a member of this house had given
a similar pledge that night. Could that be if this was a
judicial proceedieg ? At this late hour be would not
enter into the Scriptural argument. A portion of this
house who were unconvinced by the arguments of the late
Attorney-Gefieral, would continue of opinion that this