their Lordships to pause. Let them pass at that late hour, he ventured to address laws that would give the woman her some observations to them, for he felt that rights, but avoid mixing them up with he should not be discharging his duty if, those disputed and difficult questions since his views upon this subject had not which stirred the consciences of men. been expressed by any of his right rev. Let them not by a side-wind, while pro- Brethren who had yet spoken, he did not fessing to remove the injustice which was state the reasons which would induce him done to women, abolish that marriage law to support the Bill. He thought that the which from the first had been the rule in argument derived from the Scriptures was Britain. He implored them to consider one which could very readily be ascertainone other point. The Bill, if passed, ed. The Sermon on the Mount-a portion would leave the conflict created between of Scripture which he had yet to learn the law of the Established Church and was not directed to all Christians-conthe law of the statute-book unadjusted. tained an assertion which he believed every It would place churchmen in an extreme- Protestant Church regarded as decisive ly difficult position. They were at present upon the question before their Lordships. under a law to which it was their first And when in other passages they found a duty to yield a ready obedience, and to general statement that it was a crime to which, by the direct action of legisla- put away a wife, they must remember that tion, they were required to declare their general statements were seldom to be assent and consent. That ecclesiastical taken as holding in all cases in that qualilaw was left where it was, and yet it fication. If they were told that all chilwas now proposed to subject them to a dren should honour their parents, it did law which, if obeyed, would compel them not preclude instances of parents being to violate it. No set of men ought to be wholly undeserving of the honour of their put in such a position, but especially children. If they were told that there those who should be leaders and exam- should be no separation between husband ples in straightforwardness of conduct, and wife, there might still be cases of such and in simplicity of conscientious obedi- foul iniquity as to effect the utter disrupence at once to the laws of the State tion of the marriage tie. As to the tesand to the laws of the Church of which timony of the Fathers of the Church, he they were members. The Bill, in short, believed there was scarcely any subject on was one of those haphazard pieces of le- which a whole string of the Fathers could gislation which changed great institu- not be brought on one side and a whole tions without seeing the end of what it string upon the other. If they turned to proposed, and which never failed to in- the case of the Duke of Norfolk in the State volve the people subjected to them in Trials, they would find Bishop Cousens quotmany and serious difficulties. IIe entreated ing the Fathers quite as conclusively as the their Lordships to remember that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), question before them was a foundation and as to the authority of the Mediæval one. It was not one of those little Church, but on the opposite side. When things which floated upon the surface of it was so easy in practice to dissolve marsociety; it reached its very roots, and riage by making it invalid, as the noble must stir it for ages to come; and there- Lord on the woolsack had stated, they fore, believing that the Bill contradicted, could hardly wonder that no difficulty was certainly and unnecessarily, one important found in declaring it to be formally indisfact of the teaching of our Lord-that it soluble. It was said that the law of the probably contradicted another-that it Church of England was that marriage was unsettled the whole of our existing law-indissoluble. that it made provision for all kinds of future entanglements that it professed to give relief to persons whom it would never reach and that it left the question of marriage in a hopeless state of confusion he entreated their Lordships to pause before they took one step in advance, and to vote with him that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON said, that their Lordships would excuse him if, even

Of course there was no provision for the dissolution of marriage, but he was not aware of any authority for this broad statement, and those who argued from the fact that there was no provision for divorce without an Act of Parliament, to the doctrine that marriage was held to be altogether indissoluble, greatly overstated the case. If such were the law of the Church of England, why were the clergy called upon to re-marry persons whose marriages had been dissolved by private Acts. It appeared plain that the

- the

mighty convulsion with which they were it was no argument against the Bill, so far threatened by the right rev. Prelate ought as it went. The present system is at least to have come long ago, because the dis- infinitely more exclusive; it reaches, let solving of marriage by what, to borrow us say, some 5 per cent of the population. a phrase from his right rev. Brother's If the benefits of this Bill should reach speech, he might call haphazard legisla- only some 50 per cent of the population, tion, had been in action for the last 150 if it were conceded that it was founded on years. In his conscience he believed that a right principle it was a great step in the time was come when that sort of excep- the right direction. One objection to the tional arrangement ought to be done away new tribunal was its cost, arising out of its with. It was, he was prepared to maintain, holding its sittings in London, which, the the universal opinion of Protestant Churches right rev. Prelate said, would preclude the that in some grave cases marriages might poorer classes at a distance from availing be dissolved, and in those cases he thought themselves of its jurisdiction. But that it better that the dissolution should be pro- objection did not hold good. Look at the nounced by such a Court as was proposed case of Scotland. Though parties seeking by this Bill than by private laws. The divorce in that part of the kingdom had to present system was likely to do far more go to a central court situate in Edinburgh harm than good, and an opportunity now for that purpose, and had often to travel opened of satisfactorily settling the ques- great distances, it was an established fact tion upon an intelligible and religious basis. that of the whole number of divorces in He therefore hoped their Lordships would Scotland the vast majority had been cases read the Bill a second time. among the poorer classes. From November, 1836, to November, 1841, the Court of Session in Edinburgh pronounced ninetyfive sentences of divorce à vinculo parties concerned all belonging to the humbler classes, except in a single instance, in which a lady of rank sought divorce from her husband. The inconveniences from having to attend a central court were quite as great-indeed, greater than they would be in England, where the facilities of railway travelling are greater in proportion; and, therefore, he saw no reason why the remedy should not be as cheap in England as in Scotland. There was but one plain and obvious ground for limiting the courts through which divorce should be accessible. The danger of collusion must be met as far as possible. The cause, therefore, must be heard by some court capable of sifting the evidence. But if the local courts were or should become capable of sifting the evidence, he saw no reason why the power of granting divorce should not be extended to them. When he read in The Times of that morning the communication from the correspondent of that journal at Berlin on the subject of the operation of the law of divorce in Prussia, he well knew that it would be used by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) in the debate of that evening to support the view he took of this question, But he (the Duke of Argyll) denied that the case of Prussia was in the slightest degree relevant to the case under consideration in their Lordships' House. For example, the not having any children and S 6+

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that seven right rev. Prelates had now given their opinions on this question, a majority of whom were in favour of the course in dicated by this Bill, and among those who opposed it, the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, had changed his position. In the last debate the right rev. Prelate stated his opinion that the words of our Saviour gave express sanction to the dissolubility of marriage. It had been then well remarked that it was a moral and religious wrong to set about, by human invention, to checkmate that which was declared to be the Divine permission. The right rev. Prelate found his position untenable, and very naturally, under the influence of his long-sustained objections, was now disposed to give greater weight to the argument that the dissolubility of marriage was opposed to the doctrines of the Church. He was himself disposed to agree with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) that no rational man could read the passage in St. Matthew without coming to the conclusion that distinct permission was given to marry again in case of divorce by reason of adultery. He had some reason to complain of the language of his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) when he said the Bill came before the House under false pretences, inasmuch as it would still fall short of giving to the poor equal facilities with the rich. But even if it were true, which he (the Duke of Argyll) did not admit, that the benefits of this Act could not be enjoyed by the poor, VOL. CXLV. [THIRD SERIES.]

Mayo, E.
Nelson, E. [Teller.]
Powis, E.
Talbot, E.

Dungannon, V.

Chichester, Bp.

House adjourned at a quarter-past Ten o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.

Let us have no more, my Lords, of these | Hardwicke, E. disgraceful actions, the reports of which in the newspapers are the only authorized immoral publications-the only ones which the strong and impartial arm of my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, cannot reach. Let not twelve respectable men be put together in the jury-box to estimate, as best they may-while the ingenuity of counsel on both sides is chipping away the character of either party-the money value of a husband's dishonour and of a woman's guilt. Place the adulterer in the criminal's dock; let him stand in the face of the Court by the side of the forger and the burglar, who are not more guilty than he. Let the people understand that adultery is not a foible to be treated lightly, nor a fault to be compensated by a money fine, but a crime against the laws of man, as well as a sin against the laws of God.

On Question, "That now' stand part of the Motion?"

Their Lordships divided:-Contents 47; Non-Contents 18: Majority 29.

Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday

next.

CONTENTS.

St. Asaph, Bp.
Winchester, Bp.

mmmmm.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Tuesday, May 19, 1857.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Sheep, &c. Con-
tagious Diseases Prevention.
2° Ministers' Money (Ireland).

THE SAVINGS-BANK BILL.
QUESTION.

MR. COLLINS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what time he intends to fix for the Second Reading of the Savings Bank Bill issued on Saturday, and also whether he will incorporate in the Bill the rules which it is proposed to give the Government power to make for the future regulation of these banks.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the Bill stood for a second reading to-morrow, and as there appeared to be little or no objection to the principle of the Bill which was intended to give the Government a security as a guarantee to depositors, he proposed to read Brodrick, L. (V. Midle- it a second time on an early day, say Fri

Panmure, L. (U.P.S.)
Abinger, L.
Aveland, L.
Belper, L.

ton.)
Calthorpe, L.
Campbell, L.
Clandeboye, L. (L. Duf-
ferin and Claneboye.)
Congleton, L.
Crewe, L.

day or Monday, without discussion, to commit it pro formá, in order to introduce certain Amendments which he contemplated in consequence of suggestions which had been made to him, and then to fix a convenient day for its consideration in ComHunsdon, L. (V. Falk-mittee. As the real discussion would turn

Foley, L. [Teller.]

land.)
Lyndhurst, L.
Polwarth, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-
borough.) [Teller.]
Rivers, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L.
Sundridge, L. (D.
Argyll.)

on certain clauses of the Bill which were objected to, he apprehended that it could be carried on much more conveniently in Committee. He would take the present opportunity of answering a question put to him yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) in reference to the Report on Military Education. That Report was ordered to be printed by the House in July, 1856. It Wycombe, L. (E. Shel- was printed and circulated to every Member, but there was a voluminous appendix, which it was not thought desirable to circulate on account of its bulk and of the expense, but copies of it were sent to the

Talbot de Malahide, L.
Truro, L.

Wensleydale, L.

burne.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Mar- Beauchamp, E.

Carnarvon, E.

shal.) VOL. CXLV. [THIRD SERIES.]

$ 7+

office for the sale of Parliamentary papers, Mines." But notice being taken that the and any Member who desired to have a House had ordered that this Committee copy could get one on application there. should consist of sixteen Members, and He understood that the hon. and gallant had already nominated that number; Member had himself received a copy, both of the Report and Appendix.

MR. SPEAKER stated that no other Member could be added, without leave of the House previously obtained, and that the Question therefore could not be put.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the Bill would certainly Order for Second Reading read. be reprinted after its committal pro formá, Motion made and Question proposed, and sufficient time allowed before the next" That the Bill be now read a second stage for the purpose referred to by the hon. Member.