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

biil had reversed the law of God. It was said that the
principle of the bill was settled by tee discussion in the
House of Lords, but he thought that, on a subject which
affected the dome-tic happiness of the great mass of the
people, they were not to accept the dictum of ail, assem-
bly. Th re were indeed in the upper house grave and
reverend prelates, whose authority he was willing to ac-
cept, but iLe r ant` ority was agaiest the bill. It was
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? 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 i❑
marriage to believe that if she only had the bad courage
to commit herself entirely to sin, years of worldly happi-
ness were in store for her. He referred to the frequency
of divorces in Prussia to show the evil effects of the law.
The Catholics were not sheltered from the evil effects of
the law, for in one case for instance a man bad 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 wool i never consent to relieve the
clergy from the terrible hardship of being compelled to
remarry persons under this act, It was impossible for
any body of men to be more tightly bound than were the
clergy. More consideration was shown for any ether 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 had been said that the clergy
muss learn to obey the law, but he said the learned At-
torney-General ought to protect the cicrey. He regretted
to hear the taunts which had been thrown out againstthe
clergy, who in their petitions bad merely prayed that, in
the event of this bill passing into a law, they might be
relieved from the onus of what tboy considered adulter-
ous marriages. (The noble lord read ex'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 bow the
house could resist it. Parliamentarily they might do
it, but morally it was impossible. (Rear, 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 Churcb, 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 tho tyranny of Parliament. (Cheers.)
Believing 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 resit it.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved the adjournment of the
debate.

Lord PALMERSTON expressed a hope that the
house would cline to a decision on the bill that night.
Mr. NAPIER supported to the adjournment. He
should consider it to be his duty to gate 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 hr adjournment was therefore lost.
Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the house.
Lord PALMERSTON thought the house should be
bound by the majority kist 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 importa❑ce.
As far as he was concerned, he intended to support the
second reading of the bill.
Sir G. GREY thought he had never seen a more lan-
guid debate. The right hon. 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. HENLEY withdrew
his motion, and Lard LOTAINE moved the adj iurnment
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 bad sat for 13 hours.
After some discussion, this and some subsequent
cl‘uses were agreed to.
The Constables (Detached Parts of Counties) Bill was
read a second time.
The Boundaries of Burgh's 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
Bill, 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 AANDMENT BILL.
Lord NAAS moved that the House resolve itself into
committee upon this Bal.
Mr. GLADSTONE raid thatas far ache personally was
concerned he was prepared even at that late hour (20
minutes to 2) to proceed with the diecUssion of the de-
tails of the Bill, but he thought that the subject was of
such importance that notwithstanding the decision at
which the house arrived the day before, and the adhesion
of the Government to the measure, it ought not t ) be
passed en hurriedly. His object was to ascertain clearly
what was to be the position assumed with respect to :he
remunera:ion 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, aed
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 rep'•rt 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 bill, 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 cmditioes.
Mr. AYRTON moved that the house do now adjourn.
Lord NAAS would not acoede to that motion. Tie
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 bad 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 adhere to
their promise.
Mr. HENLEY said they had many of them been
there 14 hours. The right hon. gentleman (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. (Rear, bear.)
Mr. S. FITZGER A.LD 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 committee, and if it were not
no dependence could henceforth 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 he should
know what the Government intended to do before the
bill 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 paid 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 shoull rai,e a discussion on the bill.

Lori PALMERSTON suggested that the bill should
be put off for another day.
Lord NAAS declined to accede to the puggeation.
The galleriei were cleared for a 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 bill ?

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 tinder that
Oct who have more than 1001. a-year, and 21 per cent.
L•t3 salaries of those who have lass than that amount.
to tu ~t non, friend (Mr. Gladstone) explained to the
My r', g'. this was technically a repeal of a tax and
house that -dditional salaries, the noble lord had a
not a grant of .. 'reposition. Substantially, however,'
right to make this 1~ ~al salaries to the civil servants.
it is a grant of additio, ind if the Ge7ernment were
In that sense I take