Lords Sitting of 9 June 1857

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords. The Lord Lovat took the Oath prescribed by the Act 10 Geo. IV., to be taken by Peers professing the Roman Catholic Religion.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aPolice.
2a Princess Royal's Annuity.

THE MUTINIES IN INDIA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I was in hopes that it would not be necessary to draw your Lordships' attention, even for a single moment, to the lamentable events which have recently taken place in India; but more recent accounts, which I only perused last night,
1394
have given so grave a character to the mutinies which have occurred in that country that I cannot consistently with my duty abstain from asking a question of the noble Earl who represents the Government in this House. Such of your Lordships as have attended to the recent accounts from India must have read with much regret and pain the account of the mutiny of the 19th Regiment at Berhampore; you must have watched with great apprehension the march of that regiment to Barrackpore and its disbandment, under circumstances of the most perilous character, in the presence of five other native regiments. You must have looked with apprehension at similar appearances of mutiny in the Madras and Bombay armies. But that which has most alarmed me, and which gives a more serious character to all these appearances of insubordination, is that which has only come to our knowledge within the last few hours. I read in the latest accounts from India, that between the 16th and 25th of April there were seven incendiary fires at Umballa, and that the 3rd Regiment of Light Cavalry were in open mutiny at Meerut. How it can be possible that a regiment having no more than 400 sabres could for one half-hour be in a state of open mutiny in the cantonment of Meerut is what I cannot comprehend. At that station there is, I believe, a force of fifty-four guns forty-two of European and twelve of Native artillery; there is a regiment of European cavalry, the Carabineers; a battalion of the 60th Regiment, Queen's troops; and two regiments of Native infantry. The officer who commands that division had the means of putting down any mutiny in half an hour. Open mutiny is open war, and it is to be met only as open war carried on by an enemy in the field. I cannot but think that there must have been some strange misrepresentation and exaggeration in the accounts which we have received from Meerut. I have, however, looked most carefully into all the statements which we have received as to these mutinies in the Bengal Presidency, and I can come to no other conclusion than that the source of all that discontent and mutiny is the apprehension that there is an intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the religion of the natives. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Now, what has the Government done to put an end to that erroneous impression?

1395
When the 19th Regiment was disbanded at Barrack pore there was, no doubt, a passage in a long official paper emanating from the Governor General in Council, and read to the soldiery, which was to the effect that no one could pretend that the Government had at any time endeavoured to interfere with the religion of the people; but I cannot find that any notification has been made, as it should have been, at the quarters of every regiment and throughout the country, of the determination of the Government to adhere to its ancient policy of respecting the feelings and prejudices of the natives. I see no trace of there having been any general notification to that effect. It has been left entirely to the officers at the different stations to make any such notification as they should think fit under the circumstances. When the regiment was disbanded at Barrack pore, General Hearsey addressed it in terms which it is impossible to surpass in reasoning or in eloquence; and he afterwards addressed the whole of the native infantry at that station, and I do not recollect ever to have read at any time or in any history, attributed to any general in command of an army, or to any statesman who had to administer the Government of an empire, any oration more thoroughly reasoning, or more completely eloquent and convincing than the speech of General Hearsey addressed to the army on that occasion. And what should the course of the Governor General have been? Ought he not with his own hand in three sentences to have communicated to the whole country his cordial concurrence with everything which General Hearsey had said, and should be not have made his concurrence with that speech as public as the speech itself was necessarily made throughout the country? I am convinced that if the Governor General had pursued that course we should have heard no more of the incendiary fires at Umballa, nor of the open mutiny at Meerut. But that course was not taken; and although I absolve the Government of India, as a Government, from any intention to interfere with the religion of the natives, I must say that there have been of late—and daily increasing of late—circumstances which were calculated to excite in the minds of the natives great apprehension upon that subject. I saw in a newspaper which I read yesterday the names of colonels, and of six or eight important persons in the civil administration of the country, high in office, mentioned as being
1396
connected with missionary operations; and to my great astonishment—I can scarcely believe it now to be true, though I saw it distinctly stated in the papers—that the Governor General himself, Lord Canning, largely subscribes to every society which has for its object the conversion of the natives. My Lords, the Governor General of India can do nothing in his individual capacity. He cannot separate himself from his public character as Governor General. He is essentially the Government of the country. No one looks to anybody else. There may be others who think that they are of importance; but they are not. The only man looked to in India is the Governor General. It is not in India alone, but more particularly in India, that it is generally understood that if a man at the head of the Government earnestly desires anything, it is his intention to enforce his desire and to effect his purpose. I deem that fact of these subscriptions of Lord Canning, the Governor General of India, to societies having for their object the conversion of the natives, if it be true, to be one of the most dangerous things which could have happened to the security of our government in India. We must maintain that government as we have acquired it, by acting on the principles of Ackbar; but we cannot maintain it by attempting to act on the principles of Aurungzeb. You may depend upon it that if persons holding high office in the Government of India, and, above all, at the head of the Government, are permitted to act on this principle, and to indulge their own personal feelings—I do not doubt but they may be acting from conscientious motives—for the purpose of changing the religion of the people, you will see the most bloody revolution which has at any time occurred in India. The English will be expelled from India; and, expelled from that country, they will not leave behind them a dozen sincere converts to Christianity. The question which I wish to put to the noble Earl opposite is, whether instructions have been sent or will forthwith he sent to India, directing the different Governments to make known at every station of the army throughout the country, that the Government will for the future, as in times past, protect all its native subjects in the undisturbed exercise of their religion?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have always been the first to express my admiration of the strong feeling of public

1397
spirit by which the noble Earl is actuated, and of the sincerity with which he advocates anything which lie conceives to be of advantage to our Indian empire; but I do think that he has acted on this occasion somewhat without consideration, and that the remarks which he has just made must have a mischievous tendency in India. Certainly, they can have no good result; and I do think that there is considerable inconvenience in bringing questions before Parliament based merely upon telegraphic information, There is no doubt that this great application of science is attended with this inconvenience—that it is impossible to rely upon the exact truth of any information which is forwarded merely by telegraph. No information connected with the statement made by the noble Earl having reached the Government, except by telegraph, it would be unwise of me to say how far I believe a great deal of that statement to be exaggerated. What astonished me was the attack made upon the Governor General by the noble Earl in the remarks which he made—remarks in which I entirely concur—as to the sacrifice of the really important interests of the country in what may be termed misguided attempts to proselytize the natives. I believe—although himself a sincerely religious man—there is no man more likely to act with judgment in every respect on these points than Lord Canning. I do not speak so much from my knowledge of the noble Lord as from the public and private letters which I have had the advantage of reading on these very points. I do not know whether he has subscribed to any missionary society, or under what circumstances such subscriptions may have been made; but I know that he has to deplore rumours which have been circulated of the most unfounded and ridiculous character, and which will gain some strength by the attack made upon him by a person of the eminence of the noble Earl. Amongst other reports it has been said that the Governor General left this country under a pledge to Lord Palmerston that he would do his best to convert the whole of the native population of India. I mention this just to show the character of the reports which were spread abroad on this point. As a personal friend of Lord Canning I rejoice that, from what I hear, the whole community of Calcutta has been struck with the firmness, judgment, and courage, which he has shown in dealing with the
1398
beginning of these mutinous proceedings. I may mention—for it shows what is my noble Friend's opinion on these points— that the first time he exercised his veto on a Bill of the Legislative Council was on account of a clause inserted in the Bill— it was in a Police Bill—which he conceived affected in some degree the religious feelings of the natives. I am glad that my noble Friend has had this opportunity of publicly testifying his opinion of the importance of abstaining from all attempts to interfere with the religion of the natives. I entirely concur in the eulogium which the noble Earl has pronounced on the speech of General Hearsey. That officer addressed the troops in their own language, I believe, in a most eloquent and forcible manner, and with a degree of feeling which seems to have had a great effect on them. I know that Lord Canning had a great admiration for that speech, He has called the attention of the Home Government to it, and to the merits of General Hearsey; and the charge of the noble Earl, therefore, on this point falls to the ground. My answer to the question with which the noble Earl concluded is, that the Government think that Lord Canning has acted with admirable judgment in abstaining from making any such notification as that suggested by the noble Earl. Such a notification, issued when the mutiny was threatened, would have appeared to be some sort of acknowledgment that it was a change in the policy of the Government, whereas it ought to be as patent as possible that it is, and always has been, and therefore always will continue to be, the policy of the Government to afford the greatest possible protection to the natives in the exercise of their religions rights. The course taken by Lord Canning has been more judicious than that pointed out by the noble Earl. The Government approve his nut having issued any such notification, and no instructions have been sent to India such as those suggested by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid that, although a friend of Lord Canning's, he did not regret that this matter had been brought forward by his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), On the contrary, he thought that as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had told them that the most unjustifiable rumours were in circulation respecting the feelings and opinions held by the Governor General of India with regard to the religious condition of

1399
the natives of that country, they were deeply indebted to his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) for having afforded the Government an opportunity of contradicting such rumours. The noble Earl opposite said we ought not to take for granted the truth of all the statements transmitted by the electric telegraph; but the rumours respecting the Governor General of India on this subject did not rest on such despatches only. He had seen it stated in letters from India that Lord Canning had subscribed to a missionary association having for its object the conversion of the Natives. Their Lordships were perfectly aware how religious a man Lord Canning was, and they also knew that he was a man of calm judgment and great caution. If, however, he had been led by his conscientious and religious feelings to join any association of the kind described, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) would not hesitate to say that, considering the position in which he stood, he had committed a very great error. The noble Earl did not exaggerate the effects likely to have been produced in India had the Governor General subscribed to such associations; for those persons who were engaged in conscientious and estimable exertions to convert the inhabitants of India would scarcely be able to refrain from giving themselves strength and power and importance by quoting his name in their intercourse with the people, and the population of India might be tempted to identify Lord Canning with the missionaries themselves. Knowing, however, Lord Canning's caution and judgment, he could not believe that he had been guilty of so imprudent an act as to mix himself up personally with these associations; and, as a friend of Lord Canning's, he could not, regret that the noble Earl opposite had had an opportunity of contradicting the rumours that were in circulation.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to explain that having seen a statement with respect to Lord Canning, the Governor General of India, having subscribed to these societies—a statement so astonishing that he could not believe it— he thought it right at once to bring the fact under the notice of the Government, because he felt deeply that it involved a question affecting materially the security and stability of our Indian Empire.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEagreed with the noble Earl that it was
1400
impossible to overrate the importance of this subject. It was of the utmost importance that the conduct of Lord Canning in this matter should stand unimpeached until some specific facts were brought forward to which an answer or explanation could be given. One in his high position should hold himself aloof from any such associations as those which had been referred to. Indifference in such matters, in his public position, was one of the first duties of his Government, nor should he in any degree, or by any act of his, give countenance to such reports as seemed most unaccountably and mysteriously to have prevailed in India. He begged their Lordships to suspend their judgments till they had distinct information as to what were the specific associations and societies to which Lord Canning had subscribed. They would not be prepared to say that he should subscribe to nothing in India, or that the Government should define at once to what he should subscribe and to what he should not. But this he had to say, from not one only, but from repeated communications, both private and public, recently received from Lord Canning, that there was not a man in England—not even the noble Earl himself—who was more aware of the danger of countenance being given to such movements than he was. From day to day he had a full sense of the danger before his eyes, and he showed the greatest anxiety that it should not be possible for any one to deduce from his conduct the inference that he would be guilty of such a charge as the noble Lord had brought forward, Having the strongest public and private friendship for Lord Canning, he was yet prepared to state that if by any error or mistake of judgment—which he did not believe, and which he would not believe without proof—Lord Canning had so acted as to give countenance to such a belief as the noble Earl inferred, he would no longer deserve to be continued in his office as Governor General of India.
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl has just furnished me with the source whence be derived his information—it is from an Indian newspaper—and it seems to me nothing can be more vague. For anything that appeared to the contrary it might be some scientific society, many of which had religious objects in view.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: said that what had fallen from the noble Marquess

1401
was perfectly satisfactory. He had said that if it were the fact that the Governor General had subscribed to any societies having for their object the conversion of the natives he ought to be removed from the office he held, and thus all danger arising from the error would be completely removed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas understood to dissent from this interpretation, he was quite satisfied that Lord Canning would be able to justify anything he had done, and that no subscription he had given would be found to have the tendency that had been ascribed to it.

PRINCESS ROYAL'S ANNUITY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANTVILLE EARL GRANTVILLE rose to move the second reading of this Bill, and said: My Lords, on the assumption that your Lordships will agree with me in the principle that we ought to provide for the support of the institutions of this country, and, monarchy being one of the elements of our consitution, that we ought to deal in a spirit, not of wastefulness, but of just liberality to the Royal Family—that the Royal Family should be maintained in honour and dignity, and that those illustrious ladies, the daughters of our Sovereign, when called abroad, should have a fair and liberal maintenance, it will not be necessary that I should trouble you with many observations. This might have offered a tempting opportunity to allude to certain qualities of Her Majesty; but, though the feelings of affection and respect which we may entertain for the Sovereign may make us more anxious cordially and unanimously to adopt a vote in favour of Her daughter, still I should be ashamed if I based it on any such affection and respect, because I only ask your Lordships to take that course which I believe we are bound to do, not so much on the ground of personal feeling towards the Sovereign, as from a regard to what is due to the feelings and natural pride of the country. The ground I take is, that the provision proposed in the present instance is reasonable, and, being reasonable, I am sure it will be unanimously adopted by your Lordships. Looking to the precedents in such cases, we find that for the Princesses Royal, the daughters of George II. and
  1402
  George III., provision was made by a dowry of £80,000, and an annuity of £5,000. In this case the dowry is less by one-half than that given in former times, while the annuity is larger, being —8,000, instead of —5,000. I know there are some who have thought that to pay down a large sum at once would have been a better arrangement; but I am not of that opinion. I think that when an illustrious lady is married info a great kingdom and into a powerful House, our object should he not so much to make provision for her children as to provide for that independence and that decent splendour which I am sure every one of your Lordships must think ought to attend the eldest daughter of the Sovereign. For these reasons, without dwelling upon the feelings of gratification expressed by your Lordships on a former evening at an event which is likely to reward Her Majesty for the excellent education She has bestowed upon the Princess Royal, and to render the Princess Royal as happy in her future life as we all desire. I now ask your Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, although, according to the old proverb, silence gave consent, yet in the absence of his noble Friend the Earl of Derby, he felt bound on the part of the noble Lords on that side of the House, to express his satisfaction with the provision for her Royal Highness which the Bill proposed, and his admiration of the manner in which Her Majesty had exercised Her rule in these realms, and of the bright example which She had set to all her subjects. With regard to the details of the Bill, and in regard to the manner in which the provision is made, as it had passed the House of Commons, it would be useless to discuss the question whether any better plan could have been proposed. For his own part, he was inclined to believe it would have been better to have given a round sum at once, which would have placed the Princess Royal in a more dignified position than as an annuitant of this country. It would be idle, however, to discuss that question now, and he therefore had only to express his concurrence in the object of the Bill which was before the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL—RECOMMITTAL.
  House in Committee (according to Order) on Re-commitment.
  Clause 1 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17, (Divorce à mensa et thoro by reason of Desertion of Wife).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that this clause, as it stood, provided that upon desertion by the husband for two years, a wife might apply for a divorce à mensâ et thoro. Since the House had last had the Bill before it he had received several letters from men, complaining that there was no provision of a like nature extended to them. Upon considering the matter, it seemed to him that there was no sufficient reason why, upon a man being deserted by his wife for two years, he should not have the right of obtaining a divorce à mensâ et thoro from her. He I reminded their Lordships that as the Bill stood last year the clause to which the one under consideration answered, merely provided that upon such desertion a wife might petition for alimony. That, however, was but an incomplete remedy, as the husband, to save the payment of alimony, might re-quire the wife to return to him, and thus put an end to her right to the payment. But, by enabling a wife to sue for a divorce à mensâ et thoro upon desertion, this was put a stop to, and the further advantage was gained of securing a mode of relief; applicable in the converse case to the man. With a view, therefore, to extend the advantages of this clause to males, he proposed the addition of the words "husband or" in the second line of the clause.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, this Bill sanctioned for the first time the principle that divorces could be granted upon the sole ground of desertion. That he considered to be a very dangerous principle, and would open the door to great collusion, The Select Committee which had considered this subject had recommended that in cases of desertion the Court should be empowered to grant the wife alimony, but not to pronounce a divorce. That was a much more reasonable proposition than the present. As the clause now stood, nothing could be easier than for the husband to absent himself for the very object of procuring a divorce à mensâ et thoro. He should therefore move as an Amendment in line 13 to strike out the words "divorce à mensâ et thoro," in order to restore the provision for alimony to a deserted wife;
  1404
  and thus replace the clause as it was left by the Select Committee.
  EARL GREY EARL GREY rose to order. The Lord Chancellor had proposed an Amendment in line 12, and until that was disposed of their Lordships could not discuss an alteration in line 15. They ought to proceed according to the recognized rules and practice of Parliament.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSagreed with the noble Earl, but maintained that the course he had pursued was calculated to save the time of their Lordships. The clause as it stood provided that desertion by her husband should give a wife a right to divorce à mensâ et thoro. The Lord Chancellor now proposed to extend the clause so as to meet the case of a wife deserting her husband. Now, his argument was that neither husband nor wife should have a right to divorce for desertion; and if his Amendment to that effect were adopted by their Lordships there would be no necessity for discussing the alteration proposed by the Lord Chancellor in line 12.
  EARL STANHOPEthought that much of the irregularity which arose in Committee proceeded from the unsatisfactory mode in which the Amendments were printed. They appeared, not according to the order in which they ought to be taken up, but according to the alphabetical order of the names of the Peers proposing them.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that some latitude should be allowed to their Lordships in the discussion of Amendments applying to the same clause. At the same time he thought the House would gain much if it gave rather more authority to the Peer in the chair. He could not make a proposal of that kind when the Lord Chancellor was presiding, because the noble and learned Lord was a nominee of the Government; but he was at liberty to say that if the Chairman of Committees, an officer selected by their Lordships themselves, were invested with a kind of mild despotism, great advantage would result in the transaction of public business.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEdesired to know what was the question before the House?
  LORD REDESDALE(the Chairman of the Committee) replied, that the question was the Amendment proposed by the Lord Chancellor in line 12. In no circumstances would be have put any other question than that; but it was always

  1405
  open to any noble Lord to suggest that, for the sake of convenience, two Amendments bearing upon the same subject should be discussed together; and it certainly was very convenient to bear explanations as to the whole clause.
  EARL, FITZWILLIAMwished to make an observation on a word in the second line of the clause. He thought that "separation" should be substituted for "divorce" with reference to the proceeding here contemplated as the result of desertion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked that the clause, as it now stood, provided that any wife deserted by her husband for two years should have a right to divorce à mensâ et thoro. Since the Bill was printed he had received a number of letters from husbands stating that a corresponding benefit ought to be given to them, he saw no reason why that request should not be complied with, and therefore be proposed to introduce words in line 12 giving a husband the same remedy if deserted by his wife as the clause now gave to a wife if deserted by her husband. Last Session great discussion took place as to whether in the case of unjustifiable desertion there ought not to be divorce à vinculo matrimonii, as was the law in Scotland. The Committee decided in the negative; but their Lordships were generally of opinion that some relief ought to be given, and it was at his own suggestion that, instead of being entitled to divorce à mensâ at thro for desertion, a wife was to be simply enabled to petition the Court, and obtain an order for alimony. Since that time he had changed his mind upon the point, his objection being that the husband might come back and deprive his wife of the relief granted by the Court. What, in his opinion, was necessary was that the wife should have a new status under such circumstances. He had, therefore, substituted the present clause, and made provision for a divorce àmensâ et thoro, which really amounted only to a separation. The precise question before the House was whether the husband should not have the same relief as the wife.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not object to the husband having the same right as the wife to obtain from a competent court, on reasonable evidence, a separation, equivalent to what was known to the law as a divorce à mensâ et thoro, which was not, in fact, a divorce, because the parties might come together again and
  1406
  live happily the rest of their days. It was proposed by some that there should be no community of property whatever between husband and wife, and he was surprised that the proposal should have received the sanction of his noble and illustrious Friend (Lord Brougham)—illustrious for his promotion of law reform and his defence of the weaker sex. With married persons there should be community of property as well as of persons; but when a new status was acquired by divorce à mensâ et thoro the community of property ought to cease. The wife's property would then be protected, and they would bear no more of the cruel instances of husbands returning and sweeping away everything belonging to their deserted wives
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, a woman who was separated occupied a different position from a woman who was divorced. The general public did not understand the legal distinction between divorce à vinculo and divorce à mensâ et thoro. He would, therefore, move to substitute the word "separation" for "divorce à mensâ et thoro."
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the noble Earl's proposal would unnecessarily introduce an element of uncertainty into the Bill. The phrase "divorce à mensâ et thoro" was well known to the law, its attributes well understood, and its import clear and defined. Instead of it the noble Earl proposed to introduce a new word—a word, too, already appropriated to another state of things; and the result would be that uncertainty as to the intent of the Legislature would be created, to quiet which a long course of litigation might be necessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwould not pledge himself to the precise words, but thought they should insert the words "judicial separation, which shall have all the effect of" before "divorce à mensâ et thoro."
  EARL GREYwas for reforming legal nomenclature generally, and getting rid of Latin where possible. Why not call a divorce à vinculo "a divorce," and a divorce à mensâ et thoro" a separation"?
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the answer to the noble Earl's question was simply because a divorce à mensâ et thoro was not a separation—which was a voluntary

  1407
  parting capable at any time of being got over by reconciliation and recohabitation—but a divorce, an utter and total disjunction of the marriage connection so far as "bed and board" was concerned. It would be as well to call things by their right names, even in an Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, the noble and learned Lord's explanation itself showed that there was an ambiguity in the use of the word divorce, which would lead to confusion in common minds, and ought to be removed.
  On the suggestion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, words were inserted to the effect of enabling parties to petition for a "judicial separation" instead of a "divorce à mensâ et thoro."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhoped it was understood that a corresponding substitution of terms would be made in the rest of the Bill wherever it was necessary.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that would be understood as a matter of course.
  On the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he thought the substitution of "judicial separation" for "divorce à mensâ et thoro" was a very unwise one, altering as it did, and without, as it seemed to him, due consideration, a well-understood phrase which had been known to the law from the earliest times. Their Lordships could not define what "judicial separation" was. Besides, he might remind them that an alteration of terms did not change the substance of the thing meant, and it was therefore desirable to adhere to the old phraseology. The noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) seemed to speak of "judicial separation" as if it were something distinct from "divorce à mensâ et thoro," but it was, in point of fact, the same thing. He conceived that their Lordships' object was not to separate a man and wife without sufficient cause, but rather to restore wherever possible the restoration of conjugal rights. Why then, that being their object, grant a divorce à mensâ et thoro to a husband or wife who might be deserted for two years? He (Lord St. Leonards) believed the intention of the Committee upstairs, on whose Report the Bill was founded, was to adhere as nearly as possible to the established law, but to give a new tribunal, and readier means of access to that tribunal, to all classes of the population. He would move that the clause be omitted.
  On Question, "That the said Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 76; Not-Contents 37: Majority 39.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ardrossan, L. (E. Eglintoun.)

  Cleveland, D.

  Aveland, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Belper, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Brougham and Vaux, L. Calthorpe, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Campbell, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Carew, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Churchill, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Airlie, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Amherst, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard)

  Burlington, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Ellesmere, E.

  Leigh, L,

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Manners, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Mayo, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Silgo.)

  Munster, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Rivers, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Truro, L.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Wensleydale, L.

  London, Bp.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Manchester, D.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Durham, Bp.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Belmore, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  Derby, E.

  Berners, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Boston, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Talbot, E.

  Denman, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Downes, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Feversham, L.

  St. Vincent, V.

  Gray, L.

  1409

  Kenmare, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Lovel and Holland L. (E. Egmont.)

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Petre, L.

  Clauses 18 to 21. agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he now rose to propose a clause with reference to a question which occasioned considerable discussion when this Bill was last before their Lordships—namely, as to the punishment of persons who were guilty of adultery—namely, whether by imprisonment or by a money fine in the event of adultery being declared a misdemeanour. It was originally proposed by this Bill that an action of crim. con. should not be brought until after a divorce had been obtained. That proposition was very fully discussed, but it was not satisfactory to their Lordships, and it was rejected. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) proposed that adultery should be constituted a misdemeanour, and that proposition had been provisionally adopted. In the interval he (the Lord Chancellor) had considered with great attention the propriety of carrying that suggestion into effect. He had, however, arrived at the conclusion that it was not desirable to make adultery a, misdemeanour, for on many accounts it would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to carry out such an enactment. It would, for instance, be necessary to make exceptions where the adulterer was not aware that the woman was married, for in many cases traps might be laid, and a man might find himself accused of a crime which he had no idea of committing, or of having committed any crime cognizable by the law. Again, it was obvious that a very easy mode of extorting money by collusion would thus be afforded, and he thought the evil likely to result from such a change of the law would counterbalance its advantages. The two objects which they should endeavour to accomplish were, first, to render the commission of adultery less frequent; and, secondly, to take care that, when proceedings were adopted for obtaining a divorce à vinculo matrimonii, there should be a bonâ fide resisting party, and that no collusion should take place. He now proposed a clause with the view of carrying out those objects. What he suggested was that any person seeking to obtain a divorce à vinculo matrimonii should not be at liberty, as he now was, to proceed against the wife alone, unless the
  1410
  court should declare that there were special reasons for sanctioning such a course; and also a fortiori that he should not be enabled to proceed against the adulterer alone in the absence of his wife, so as to fix adultery on her in her absence; but that in every case when the husband sought a divorce à vinculo matrimonii on the ground of adultery, he should present a petition to the court praying that both parties should be made respondents or defendants in the case. Both the parties, the alleged adulterer and the wife, would thus be before the court, and the action would be bonâ fide resisted. As to the punishment, he should propose that the Court should have the power to impose a fine upon the paramour, and that fine, with the view of indicating that it was not in-tended to be merely a nominal one, he should propose to limit to an amount not exceeding £10,000. The amount had been objected to as being excessive, but it was only intended to indicate that it should not be a merely nominal fine. He, therefore, now proposed the insertion of a clause, to the effect that in actions for adultery both the wife and the adulterer should be made parties to it; and that a decree of divorce against the wife should also be a decree condemnatory of the adulterer, and subjecting him to such a fine as the Court in its discretion might impose. He believed that such a course would be the most practicable, and one most likely to prevent the commission of the offence, because it would not only have the effect of exposing the conduct of the parties and inflicting a heavy fine upon the paramour, but every one charged would have proper notice of the action and an opportunity of defending themselves. The noble and learned Lord then proposed his clause, as follows—
  "Upon any such Petition presented by a husband the Petitioner shall make the alleged Adulterer a co-respondent to the said Petition, unless on special grounds, to be allowed by the Court, he shall be excused from so doing, and the Respondents, or either of them may insist on having the alleged adultery tried by a jury as hereinafter mentioned."
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely approved of the plan proposed by his noble and learned Friend. They were all agreed in condemning the action for criminal conversation, but the difficulty was how to prevent the adulterer and the adultress from going free. Many years ago Pitt, Fox, and Grenville, and others who edified and adorned the two Houses of Parliament,

  1411
  expressed it is their opinion that the action for criminal conversation ought to be abolished, and that a substitute for it ought to be provided by making adultery an offence liable to be visited with punishment. Of the same opinion was that renowned advocate and splendid orator—the chief of the legal profession in his day—Erskine, many of whose immortal laurels were gained in connexion with actions for criminal conversation; and in that opinion Lord Eldon entirely concurred. He had before alluded to the injustice and hardship inflicted upon women by that action; and of these he would now give their Lordships one example. He held in his hand five letters from the alleged, the falsely alleged, paramour of the injured lady to whom they referred, and he would answer for it that the reading of those letters by two, or thee, or more, of their Lordships, would at once convince them that the charge against that lady of having had an amour with his late lamented friend Lord Melbourne, was absolutely and necessarily impossible to be true. He had read them, and they had produced the most absolute conviction in his mind that the thing was utterly and entirely untrue. Yet an action was brought behind the back of that lady, without necessarily any notice, and but for the verdict of the jury, obtained through the exertions of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), the character of that lady would have been ruined for life, she being as entirely and absolutely guiltless as any human being in the three kingdoms. As regarded the punishment of an adulterer, he preferred the infliction of a fine to an indictment for misdemeanour, his reason for so doing being the difficulties which beset all attempts to detect conspiracy in such cases. One example occurred to him at that moment. A merchant's clerk in the city went home with a woman whom he supposed to be following her professional avocation; it afterwards turned out that she was married; an action was brought, and on proof being given of the fact of marriage, damages were awarded to the amount of £1,500. It was almost impossible to provide any absolute safeguard against conspiracy and collusion.
  EARL GREYsaid, that although he thought that the clause now proposed was a great improvement on the original proposition, still he was of opinion that the imposition of a fine would operate very unequally upon the wealthy and the poorer
  1412
  classes of persons. He should be glad to see imprisonment enacted as well as a fine, and if no other noble Lord undertook the task, he should himself propose a clause to that effect. From the first he (Earl Grey) had entertained grave doubts of the propriety of legalizing divorces à vinculo matrimonii at all; he trusted therefore that the present measure would be regarded only in the light of an experiment, and that, if found to lead to an increased laxity of morals, the Legislature should return to what had always been the theory, though not the practical law of the country—namely, rendering the marriage tie indissoluble except by the death of one of the parties.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had always thought the action for crim. con. a disgrace to English jurisprudence, and he entirely approved of the proposals of his noble and learned Friend in the clause under discussion. With regard to the suggestions for making the offence a misdemeanour, he could not give it his support, as it would enable any man to prosecute in those cases. The fine would be in all cases proportioned to the means of the adulterer, and would therefore press equally upon the rich and the poor, He would, however, have preferred his noble and learned Friend leaving the amount of the fine quite open to the discretion of the presiding Judge.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that while he entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord as to the inexpediency of granting additional facilities for obtaining divorce, he thought that the punishment of imprisonment should be added to the money fine, because a fine in the case of a rich man was next to no punishment, and in the case of a man of moderate means it would operate as a very heavy punishment. Imprisonment, on the other hand, savoured of disgrace, which a money fine did not; indeed, he could imagine the latter punishment being regarded in certain vitiated states of society rather as an honour than as a disgrace. The proper course would be to render adultery a disgraceful crime against society, and to punish it as such. If the House agreed to the present clause he would move, upon the reading of the 25th clause, the insertion of a clause to enable the Court to impose imprisonment as well as fine, and also to give power to apply any part or the whole of the fine to pay the costs of the proceedings.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment to this clause, to the effect that a party who had once been a defendant in a suit in the court of divorce should afterwards be allowed to become a prosecutor in the event of having contracted another marriage. The object was to avoid the scandal that often took place on the Continent.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould not assent to any such Amendment. If a divorce à vinculo was allowed at all, the effect ought to be to place the parties in a position of perfect freedom, as if no marriage had ever been contracted. As to scandals to which the noble Earl had referred, he did not think they were likely to occur in this country. For many years the law of divorce had been in practical operation, and no such case had ever occurred.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert a clause:—
  "Whenever in any such petition presented by a husband the alleged adulterer shall have been made a co-respondent, and the adultery shall have been established against him, the Court shall impose on him a fine of such amount as it may deem just, not exceeding ten thousand pounds, and may also order him to pay all or any part of the costs of the said proceedings."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed, as an Amendment to the proposed clause, to insert after the word "established"—
  "it shall be lawful for the Court to pass upon the guilty parties, or either of them, sentence of fine and imprisonment, or fine or imprisonment, as if they had been convicted of a misdemeanour at common law, and it shall be lawful for the Court to order the whole or any part of such fine to be applied in payment of the costs of the proceedings."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it would be better to limit the punishment to fine, as this was the first time that such a principle had been introduced into the law.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsupported the Amendment, as a fine only would be of very little effect in the case of wealthy persons.
  LORD CAMPBELLthought it would be to better to keep by the fine alone. In some cases a husband might feel reluctance and even horror at taking a course which might send his wife, even though guilty, to prison.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKobserved, that in some cases a heavy fine would fall as a punishment upon the children.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDreminded their Lordships that imprisonment was not rendered imperative by his Amendment. It might be inflicted in extreme cases, but these would be very rare.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould imagine nothing more revolting to the mind of a man whose wife had been unfaithful to him than the reflection that he could not obtain a divorce without subjecting her to imprisonment.
  LORD BROUGHAMobjected to the Amendment, which gave a Court power to inflict a heavy punishment of imprisonment without the intervention of a jury. No doubt the sole action of a Court was sometimes useful, as in cases of insolvency or bankruptcy, but it was not the same in respect of criminal proceedings.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDobserved that, by a new clause which would be proposed, there would be a trial before a jury.
  EARL GREYsaid, as they were about for the first time to make divorce a part of the law of the land it was necessary to guard that change by every possible precaution. A pecuniary fine might be sufficient in some cases, but there were others in which it would be totally inadequate. There were special cases in which justice could only be done by punishing the guilty parties by imprisonment. In cases where a designing woman had entrapped a man into adultery with the desire of being detected, a fine would be of little use. Such cases might be rare, but that they did sometimes occur was a matter of history.
  On Question, Whether the said words be there inserted? their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 33: Majority 10.
  Amendment made; Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Centerbury, Archbp.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Dungannon, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Westmeath, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Airlie, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Lifford, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Cowper, E.

  Durham, Bp,

  Derby, E.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Grey, E.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  London, Bp.

  Romney, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Lovat, L.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Petre, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  DeMauley, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Denman, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellar.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Leigh, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Manners, L.

  Granville, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Rossic, L. (L.Kinnaird) [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Orkney, E.

  Portsmouth, E,

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Seafield, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Belper, L.

  Talbot de Malahidc, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Truro, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Clauses 20 to 44 agreed to.
  Upon Clause 45, prohibiting persons divorced after being proved guilty of adultery from marrying again,
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved the omission of certain words, and the insertion of others, with the view of restoring the clause to the state in which it stood previous to the Amendment moved by the Archbishop of Canterbury when the Bill was last in Committee, prohibiting the re-marriage of the guilty party. That Amendment was made by the most rev. Prelate, and was carried on a division by a small majority. Without saying what was the proper interpretation of the scriptural texts on the subject, he would admit that they ought to legislate on it in the spirit of those texts, and with the view to promote public morality and public policy. He could conceive nothing more scandalous in point of public morality than by Act of Parliament to place the woman, and in some cases the man, in a position in which they must remain single, and in the case of the woman, to force her, necessarily in some instances, into a state of prostitution. It was gross injustice to leave the adulterer at liberty to re-marry, and to restrain the woman who had been
  1416
  divorced in consequence of his licentiousness from the same liberty. He thought there ought to be no restriction, and that the woman in such cases ought to be at liberty to marry the adulterer or any one else. The noble and learned Lord then moved to omit ("Party on whose petition the marriage shall have been dissolved") and insert ("respective parties thereto").
  LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his cordial approval of the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say, that both upon Scriptural grounds and for reasons of public morality he did not think that guilty persons ought to be permitted to marry again. He would, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLstated that several noble Lords had voted for the introduction of the words proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury upon the supposition that they amounted merely to a prohibition of marriage between paramours. He could not believe that a majority of their Lordships would wish to condemn a person guilty of adultery to perpetual celibacy, or, probably, to a life of immorality. It was not improbable that some so-called Amendments had been proposed with a view to the rejection of the Bill elsewhere.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), which it was now proposed to expunge, did not condemn the guilty party to perpetual celibacy. It provided that the husband or wife guilty of adultery should not marry while the husband or wife who had obtained a divorce continued to live. If that provision were removed they would have the anomaly of a person divorced à vinculo being in a better position than a person divorced à mensâ ct thoro, because the latter could not, but the former could, marry in the lifetime of the person from whom they were divorced.
  EARL GREYexplained that on the former evening he voted for the Amendment, because he did not wish to see divorce à vineulo given without some safeguard; but he thought it ill fulfilled that purpose, and, as they had now made adultery liable to punishment, not only by fine but by imprisonment, he should vote for the Amendment now proposed—that was, to strike out the prohibition.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the object of their Lordships should be to surround the innocent with the greatest number of guards, rather than to leave the guilty exposed to the possible inconvenience of marrying their paramours. That was most eminently the character of the proposition of the most reverend Prelate. All experience showed that the purity of civilized society depended more upon the absolute chastity of the woman rather than the principle of the man. The temptation I to sin assailed the man and the woman on two opposite sides of their character. In the man the great temptation was the gratification of appetite; but it was not so in the woman. The late Mr. Coleridge, in one of his admirable essays on the relation between the two sexes, expressed the idea so forcibly that he would quote the words—"The desire of the man is for the woman; the desire of the woman is for the desire of the man." That was to say, that the woman was led astray, not by the direct temptation of sensual appetite, but by the proffer of affection—by the promise that what in early life she trusted to be to her husband, but had failed in being—namely, the object of attachment and affection—she would be to the tempter. Those married women who had fallen from the direct temptation of appetite were very rare exceptions, and in ninety-nine cases out of 100 they fell, because their marriage had been unhappy in its consequences. To say, therefore, that the woman should not marry for the natural lifetime of the husband she dishonoured, was to take away from the tempter a prevailing bait and to give an additional safeguard to her remaining innocent. Let their Lordships remember what the proviso was, that was embodied in the clause at the instance of the most rev. Prelate. It was not in any sense put in as a penalty upon either party that they should be prohibited from marrying, longer than they would have been prohibited from marrying another, if they had not sinned. The innocent party was allowed under the clause to marry again; and was it an extreme punishment to say to the guilty person that he or she should not marry again during the lifetime of the party from whom he or she was divorced? It seemed to him monstrous to represent that as an outrageous violation of liberty.
  After a few words from Lord DE ROS,
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONfelt himself at liberty, now that adultery was to be
  1418
  punished by fine and imprisonment, to vote for the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, and against the Amendment made the other night in the Bill, on the Motion of the most rev. Prelate.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24, Not-Contents 46: Majority 22.

  CONTENTS

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Durham, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  St. David's. Bp.

  Nelson, E. [Teller]

  Romney, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Gordon, V. (E. aberdeen.)

  Lovat, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Dononghmore.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Stafford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Campbell, L.

  Cloncurry, L.)

  Congleton, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Dc Mauley, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Denman, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Westmeath, M.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Airlie, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Cowper, E.

  Granville, E.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Grey, E.

  Manners, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Minto, E.

  Ponsonby, E. (E. Bessborough.)

  Morloy, E.

  Munster, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) [Teller]

  Seafield, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  Dungannon, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Sundridge, L. (Argyll.)

  London, Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Belper, L.

  Truro, L.

  LORD WENSLEYDALEthen moved an Amendment, to add to the clause the following proviso:—
  "Provided that the other party shall not marry the person with whom the adultery is proved to have been committed, and the Court in its decree for a divorce is to name that person"
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEcould

  1419
  not assent to the Amendment, which he thought would not tend practically to promote the interests of religion and morality. He believed that in cases of this description women were generally led into error by passion, and those who had lived long in the world were aware of the feeling with which women who had so erred were regarded by their own sex. Even if women who had thus fallen remarried, they were still in a position of great degradation, and it was difficult to estimate the punishment they suffered. The object of legislation should be to provide for the reformation of offenders after they had suffered punishment for their crimes; but he believed the effect of this Amendment, by depriving a woman of the opportunity of marrying her partner in sin, would be to degrade her utterly, and to drive her to a course of prostitution. When they dealt with a burglar or a perjurer, they always supposed that he might, by repentance, be qualified to resume, in some measure, that position in society which he had occupied before he became a criminal; and were they in the case of a woman alone to refuse the opportunity of reformation, although experience had shown that women who had violated the marriage vow had subsequently become faithful wives and good mothers, and had shown themselves deserving of that limited respect which could be gained by persons under such circumstances? He agreed with a great legal authority who had said that cases of this description ought to be dealt with according to the particular circumstances of each case, and he considered that the discretion ought to be left to the Court. This Amendment, however, if it should be adopted, would deprive the Court of any discretionary power.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD,in supporting the Amendment, observed, that it was unnecessary to repeat the arguments he had urged on a former occasion, but he might remind their Lordships that they were not legislating simply for one class, but for all classes of the community, and that they ought to consider the effect which might be produced by their legislation upon what were called the lowest orders of society. Unless they agreed to this proviso, they offered great inducements to crime, with the view of dissolving the marriage tie. The noble Marquess was wrong, in thinking that the first object of legislation was the reformation of the
  1420
  offender: it was the prevention of crime. It was said that they should not impose too stringent restrictions in the first instance, because, if it were found necessary, the law might subsequently he rendered more severe; but all experience showed that it was much easier to relax a law than to increase its stringency.
  LORD CAMPBELLshould support the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend.
  On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided;—Contents 28; Not-Contents 37: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS

  Canterbury, Abp.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Durham, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Campbell, L.

  Romney, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Lyttelton, L.

  Petre, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donougmore.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Wensleydale, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Belper, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Denman, L.

  Wellington, D.

  De Ros, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L. (Teller.)

  Westmeath, M,

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Cowper, E.

  Leigh, L,

  Granville, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Grey, E.

  Harrington, E,

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Manners, L.

  Minto, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Morley, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessbourough.)

  Portsmouth, E,

  Seafield, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Roossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) (Teller.)

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  London, Bp.

  Truro, L.

  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.