Star.
London, England, 1816-12-28 00:00:00

FRAPICE.

Abstract of the Report of the Special Commission
of the Chamber of Peers, on the Pi oject of Law re.
specting Divorce :

The Law of the Bth of May, 1816, abolished Di-
vorce, but it only consecrated, n we May so speak,
the principle of the abolition. The secondary dispo-
sitions necessary for developing itr consequences were
still wanting, and it is the object. of the new Law
Which is now proposed, to supply them.—Tho first
article enacts that ,c Every pursuer of Divr•rce, attic/
within three months of the publication of the preset
law, shall not, in terms of the law of the Bth of May,
1816, follow up his suit, by obtaining a decree , f
separation of persons, a mina d Moro, or who shall
not intimate to the other party that he wishes
to execute as a decree of separation, the d'e6tutive de-
cree which had authorised the pronunciation, of this.

divorce, shall be held as having desisted from his sn't
or abandoned all advantage from the decree. He
shall only then be permitted to pursue for a separa-
tion of persons, nn bringing a new action. reserving to
him always the benefit of his former grounds of

action.
The Commission consider this a very wise regula-
tion and liable to no eiception.
The second article is as follows :—" Parties whose
divorce has been pronounced, and who are not as
engaged in another marriage, may be re-united.
From all other marriages they are interdicted until
the decease of one of them."
A considerable difficulty has been experienced with
respect to this article. It is deemed extremely pro.
per in the first instance, that divorced persons should
be invited to re-unite themselves, and the cause of a
legislative regulation for that purpose being neces-
sary is, that the power of re-union had been formally
done away by the Civil Code. The law of divorce,
although pernicious in its effects, had yet its rules and
its principles. It was not wished to make a joke of
divorce, and an interdict was therefore passed against
persons once divorced ever re-marrying.
Oa aboreling divorce, that iitterdictEn had of
course no longer any Application ; and, on the con-
trary, the reunion was called far by all those consi-
derations which had dictated the law of abolition....
The difficulty then, with respect to this article; applies
only to the second part of it, which enacts, that,
" From all other marriage they are interdicted until'
the decease of one of them." Numerous obkicsions
against this provision have been stated, and urged
with much earnestness; but a majority of the Com-
mission agree in thinking that it is imperiously Balled
for, by the existing state of the laws, by morality,
and by religion. For, first, the law proposed cannct
be contrary to that of the Bth of May, 1816, which
abolished divorce, and along with it, of course, every-
thing, which can be pleaded as a result of it. The
law of abolition left whatever was already -done, and
which it could not binder, to subsist; but it prevented
all that it could prevent. It is true, that one of two
divorced persons may have already re.married ; but is
it any reason that because there has been one misfortune
a second should be permitted ? The institution of di-
vorce having been judged abusive, it is right to dimi.
nish the abuse as mach as possible.---kilt, Morality
forbids marriage with a second wife before the decease
of the first. Our first studies tell us that.the relation
of husband and wile is indissoluble. Confuse& viriees
mann, individual* vita consurindinem corathurie, hewn-
patility of character—violence of conduce-21'e nut
reasons sufficient for annulling se sacred a Ompact."
—Perseverance is virtue; fidelity a duty.
&fly, Religion speaks with a still more cOMfetaGd-
'in voice. When the law of divorce was estabfiLvd,
there was no State religion ; marriage svgs regulatal
as a purely civil institution. But now Cathetic
religion is declared and recognized by the C.- •:sirtar as
the religion of the State ; and can the
State be in contradiction to its religion ? Such cer-
tainly would be the case were one of two divorced per..
ons permitted a.) re-marry because the other hadoshile
thealkw of divorce existed, taken that advantage.
It marriage, like other compacts, were an act purely
civil, the plea would have some weight; when a civil
contract is broken by one 'silty, it is equally so for
the other. But marriage, toe lit st of contracts, is not
an act simply civil ; it holds a mote algest place in
society—it is consecrated by public decency and by
religion. Destroy as yon will the civil act, if public
decency and religion reclaim it, there are sufficient
reasons for preventing the party not re-married front
entering into any new bonds.
The Articles 3,4, and 5, regulate the formalities
to be observed when two divorced parties with to be
re-united. Article 6 relates to the recognition of
children who may have been born of divorces' parents,
notwithstanding the divorce.
The Commission propose here the insertion of a
new Article, in these terms:--" Persons divorced,
who have re-united themselves anteriorly to the pre.
Sent law, shall be excepted from the formalities pre.
icribed by Articli 3 and 4. It shall be Etlificient that
they declare thew re-union to the Civil Officer, who
will receive the declaration, and make mention of it in
the public registry of marriages, conformably to 'As..
isle 5 and 7 of the present law."
The other Articles of the law are rept!sr:ed
without any observation.
• •

, •

communitiei take so many ramifications, that the
whirlpool of their calamities involves in its vortex all
who are our it.
CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.
SITTING OF 1112 '230 MF DECEMBER.
The Chamber opened at half-pest twelve. •
The Order of the Day called for the discussion
upon the Project of the Low relative to absent Mi-
litary.
General Count Dorm; r ascended the Tribune,
and gave his support to the Projec!, with all the
Amendinents of t!:c Commission. lie decl +red it to
be a proof of the King's goodness to extend his soli-
citude to the absent Military. Many, he sAI4, whose
existence is unknown, may be established in foreign
countries. France had faithfully restored all the,
soldiers belonging to other nations, and it was to be
hoped that the latter would do the same. He then
voted for the adoption of the Project, with the amend-
ments of the Commission.
M. Faoc nit LA BOULATE demanded that some
changes should be made in the drawing up of the
I.tw, in order that it may be extended to the sailors.
Supported.
M. Cot:lv/w ave supported the Project, with the
proposed Amendments.
The PatEduENT then put the question to the vote,
article by article, and the whole project was unani-
mously accepted, except with a little alteration made
in the diction of a few articles.
There was a little discussion after the reading of
each article, but it ended by a great majority, merely
in an enlargement of the text, so as to extend its be_
ri.fits to the absent sailors. In other respects the text
of the project was observed the same.
Alter the reading and adoption of the ministerial
project, with the amendments of the Commission,
and some others in the course of the debate, the Pre-
sident informed the House, that to-morrow (Tues-
day), the Order of the Day would call for the dis-
cussion in a Public Sitting, of the Report of the Cum,
mission relative to Ecclesiastical Establishments.-
'Adjourned to Tuesday.

DECEMBER Si.
The Chamber proceeded to the Order of the Day
for the discussion of the Projet de Loi relative to the
endowment of Ecclesiastical Establishments.
M. D'AnovrauN opposed the Projet in its present
state. He could nrt conceive the existence of an
Ecclesiastical Establishment, which shoo'.d not at the
same time be an establishment of pub is utility ; and
every institution which cilmrdzuted to the pablic gopd,
he considered as having a rigltto the prblic supr Jrt.
It was right, therefore. ! ,- alh wed, irritlie city
encouragement to pious cloerAtions in aid or relig:Dus
institutions; but these donations, he conceived. sh:A.l.l
Ilma mark to the Government. the Departo:L:o. •JT
the Communes, rith the charge c: applying lays',
in the manner designed by the acts of douat::..us. ..!c.
cording to the Projet now submitted, however, tlic
right of possession and administration was to i.e
vested in the Establishments themselves. in a man:ler
wholly independent of the civil authority, and under
laws and regulations contrary to the general spirit of
the laws. _ _

M. DELAI:ti AY (de L'Orne) submitted, that to
make any act of donation valid, the donor should
have lived long enough after the act of donation to
make it evident that his will was free, that his moral
and physical powers were entire. He proposed,
therefore, as an amendment to the Pr4:t, that no
grant of immoveable (real) property. by last will,
shall be valid, unless, it shall have. brc t made forty
days before the decease of the grouter. 11 that amend-
ment should be rejected, he would detnand the appli-
cation to all directors of establishments, capable of
receiving endowments, of the same prohibitions as
exist against physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries,
who wait on the sick. k •
M. le Comte MARCELLA'S spoke for the Pries, as
presented by the Commission.
M. LIZOT referred to two amendments made by I
the Commission, both of which he objected to:* The
first went to give a legal recognition to all &amiss.
tical establishments actually formed, or to be formed,
in virtue of the acts of Government, even until the
promulgation of the law under discussion, without
the names, numbers, rules, rights, or prerogatives, of
these establishments being known. So blind an act
would be the complete destruction of the Charter.—
The other amendment was equally objectionable,
since it provided that the King could not, even upon
the demand of the titular of an ecclesiastical estab-
lishment, authorize the alienation of a real property,
or of an annual-rent, pertaining to that establishment,
unless the demand of the titular shall be also accom-
panied with a demand from the Bishop. lewas asto-
nishing that the Commission should have shewn so
little respect to the rules of the hierarchy as to put
the Titular of an establishment and the Bishop of a
diocese upon the same footing, after such a manner
that the demand of the superior should have no more
effect than the demand of his subordinate ; and it was
still more astonishing that they should by this means
have rendered the authority of the King of no effect,
without the coolie of the Bishop.
M. Purr supplied the Projet as submitted by the
Commission.

M. Couavounaa did not object to thebasis of the
Projet, but concurred with M. Lieut. in his excep-
tions to the amendments proposed by the Commission.
M. Roazar as MAC CART= spoke in favour of
the amendments.
M. Eamon followed on the same side.
M. Lan% the Minister of the Interior, demanded

. .
to be beard. He could see nothing in the objections"
of Id. de Argenson; to the basis of' the. measure.
No danger was to be apprehended from endowments
to ecclesiastical persons, more than to any'others.
With respect to the amendments proposed by the
Commission, the King bad not, v,lien lie charged
his Ministers with presenting this Projet, thought it
necessary to propose any thing as to the regulation of
the mode of acquiring and possessing : and M.
Laine did not now see any reason which called for,
either of these amendments. The law, as it stood,
he considered quite sufficient fur all the purposes
which they aimed at.
M. RIVIERE, the Reporter of the Commission, was
next heard in answer to the different obiervations
which had been made.
The Amendment of M. DICLAUNAY was then put
sill
to the vote, but set aside by the previous question.
The first Amendment of the Commis ' s also
put to the vote, and rejected by a great m .
The PRILSIDENT then put to the vote the fir and
second Articles of the Prejet, as presented by Mini-
sters, which were accordingly adopted.
The Amendment of the Commission se Article S,
e
was negatived, and the Article, as prods! opted.
The Chamber now proceeded to to upon
the whole of the Law, and it was carried by a ma-

jority of 169 to 29.
The Law, as now adopted, is as follows :
Art. 1. Every Ecclesiastical Establishment, ac-
knewledged by law, may accept, with authority of
the King, all moveable or immoveable property or
rents, which may be granted to it, by deeds inter
vivo:, or by last will and testament.
2. Every Ecclesiastical Establishment, acknow-
ledged by law, may also acquire, with authority of
the King, real property or rents.
S. The real property or rents belonging to an Ec-
clesiastical Establishment, shall be possessed in per-
petuity by the said Establishment, and shall be un-
elieuable, without the authority of the King.

CHAMBER OF PEERS.
SITTING OF THE 24TH OF LIECENNER.

The Chamber proceeded to the Order of the Day
for the discussion of the Projet de Loi relative to the
efilcts of Divorce. After a full consideration, tl.e
d.finitive adoption of the Projet was put to the vote,
and carried by a majority of 106 to :)'B.—Adjourned
till Friday, when 'lie niscussion of the Projet de Loi
relative to the fiepar.term rf Persons, will take place.

bllc
sho
one
det
fur
the
tCo
; .
the
w
in
an
lal
gr
eso
C
of
b
to
II
.•