TUE Drvonce BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, the Duke of NORTOLE moved that the bill should Le referred to a • Select Committee. Maintaining that even in a Protestant point of view the authority of Scripture decided that marriage is indissoluble, he undertook to prove his point if the House would grant him. a Committee. The Bishop of Sr. Davies opposed the motion. He could find no authority for the assumption that our blessed Lord intended that all his precepts should be embodied in the code of every Christian legislature. It is one thing to say that everything he enjoined is binding on Christian consciences, another that a Christian legislature is bound to embody everything in its code. Nevertheless, the Bishop spoke against the bill • for he thought it would not multiply happy marriages, and it would familiarize tho people with the idea that divorce is a common incident of marriage. The Earl of IlanaoweY opposed the motion, and defended the bill. Lord 11EDESDALF, said, in reply to the Bishop of St. Davide, that although a Christian legislature is not bound. to enforce everything inculcated by Scripture, still they were not justified in sanctioning something believed to be prohibited by Scripture, and certainly prohibited by law. The Duke of ARGYLL said, that already, in a Committee, the Duke of Norfolk had raised the question, and had only found three out of twelve to support him. On a division, the motion was negatived by 123 to 26. In Committee, some changes were made in the bill. On clause 14, Lord ST. LEONARDS moved the insertion of words intended to protect a wife in the enjoyment of property acquired in the absence of her husband. Ile proposed, that if a with were deserted by her husband for a year or upwards, and the husband returned and claimed the property, the wife should be able to obtain from a Justice of the Peace an order restraining the husband, his creditors, or any other person, from attempt ing to interfere with the wife's earnings. This amendment gave rise to much discussion. There was a general concurrence in the object of the clause, but much difference of opinion respecting the means of attaining that object. The LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord CAMPBELL said the means were futile. The Earl of DERBY and otherOpposition Peers determined to divide the Committee, not on the precise words of the amendment, but on the question whether a deserted wife should have a short and summary remedy for the protection of her property. Earl GREY strongly recommended the establishment of a local tribunal with full power to decree a separation Is mental et there in case of desertion. The Loan CHANCELLOR promised to consider the subject ; but he was convinced that every attempt to secure the object in view will be delusive until some mode is devised for effecting a separation between man and wife.—On a division, the amendment was earned by 62 to 44. On clause 19, the Earl of DONOUOHMORE moved the insertion of words placing married women on the same footing as their husbands with regard to divorce it vineulo matrimend.—Negatived by 71 to 20.1 On the same clause Lord LYNDHURST moved an amendment. 'He pro
posed that wilful desertion without cause for a period of five years should be accepted as sufficient ground for pronouncing a dissolution of marriage; and supported his proposal by argument and authority.—The amendment was negatived by 97 to 8.
On clause 43, giving parties the liberty of remarrying, the Bishop 'of Oaroan moved that the clause should be struck out. Such liberty is
-opposed to the teaching of Scripture ; it is not demanded by the people;
-and if allowed, it would endanger their morals. Lord CAMPBELL sai, that every husband who comes with a just cause and proves his injury is de jure entitled to a divorce, and, having obtained it, is de jure entitled to marry again. On the other hand, Lord WENSLEYDALE said that the common law of England is that marriages are indissoluble : the granting of divorces is merely a relaxation in the husband's favour. The Earl of DERBY drew a distinction between the injured and the guilty party. The former he would, the latter he would not permit to wary again. At the suggestion of Lord DERBY, the Archbishop of 'CANTERBURY moved an amendment restricting the person against whom the divorce is pronounced from marrying the companion in guilt. On a division, this amendment was carried by '53 to 47. The Bishop of OxTORD did not press his amendment.
The House resumed without having finally disposed of clause 43 in Committee.
Before the order of the day for taking the Divorce Bill in Committee was read, Lord LYNDHURST made a statement of his views respecting actions for criminal conversation, and of the position of the question. The general opinion of the Select Committee on the bill a year ago was 11 favour of the total abolition of these actions ; but there was some difficulty and great divergence of opinion as to what should be substituted in lieu thereof, and the Committee came to no conclusion. As the 'bill now stands, these actions will be continued in a form more objection' able than at present. There is a strong feeling within and without the 'House against them. When they occur, not only the judge on the 'bench but the advocates reprobate them ; and on the Continent they are -regarded at a scandal to the country. They do not meet the end for
llich they were devised, the prevention of collusion. They are not 'intended as a punishment for guilt, but as a compensation for injuries which money cannot compensate. Nothing can be more scandalous than the way the woman is treated in these actions ; the whole proceedings taking place behind her back ; verdicts being sometimes returned that are unsupported by the evidence ; and in one case a verdict of guilty seas returned where it was afterwards proved to demonstration, not only that the lady had not been guilty of adultery, but that the marriage had never been consummated. He trusted that an end would be put to this kind of action. Some years ago, a bill to abolish this action was supported in the Upper House by Lord Eldon, and in the Lower House by Lord Stowell, then Master of the Rolls, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Erskine, and others. This was a strong sanction in favour of his observations.
The MEMO went into Committee again on Thursday ; resuming the discussion on clause 43. The Bishop of OXFORD move a an amendment, Exempting clergymen from censure, penalty, or punishment, who, in 'conscientious obedience to the law of the Church, refuse to perform the marriage-service over any person who had been married and divorced. The amendment was opposed by the Loan CHANCELLOR, the Bishop of • BANGOR, the Bishop of LONDON, and Lord CAMPBELL. They held that 'the clergy were bound to obey the law of the realm, and that it would be • dangerous to admit that scruples of conscience justify disobedience to the law. The Earl of CARNARVON supported the amendment. On a division, it was negatived by 78 to 25; and the clause was agreed to. On clause 44, relating to actions for criminal conversation, much disMission took place. The proposal of the Lord Chancellor was, that ac-lions for criminal conversation should not be brought until the guilt of the wife has been established. Lard LYNDHURST objected to this. -'Under this clause, a poor man would have to go through a double pro'tending, and incur a double expense, before he could get justice. He moved an amendment, striking out certain words in order to abolish the action altogether. The opinion of the Committee seemed to be, that this should not be done without providing some mode whereby an injured party might obtain redress. Such an opinion was expressed by the Bishop of Clitroan, Lord WENSLEYDALE, and the Earl of DERBY. After much conversation' it was at length agreed that the amendment proposed by Lord Lyndhurst should be adopted ; but that certain words, sug-gested by Lord Sr. LEONARDS, should be inserted, providing that it shall not be competent for any person to bring an action for damages for al
• minal conversation, but that whoever shall commit adultery with a marArica woman shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour. The remaining clauses were agreed to without debate ; the bill was reported, and the House resumed.
Previous page
