Sitting of 20 May 1856

MINUTE.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Longford County, Hervey George Hughes, esq.

OFFICERS' CHARGERS IN THE EAST— QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, on the return of the British army from the Crimea, to bring home, at the public cost, the regulation number of chargers belonging to officers; or, if all the horses were not brought home, whether they intended to make up to all officers the amount of allowance to which they would have been entitled if the horses bad been lost in Her Majesty's service? He intended his question to cover the case of cavalry, infantry, staff officers, and, indeed, the case of any officers who were bound to have chargers with the army in the field.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he had stated on a previous occasion that General Codrington had not sent home any despatch explaining the reasons which induced him to issue the General Order upon this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman would probably agree with him that it was right that the Commander of the Forces should have a large discretion left to him in this as in other matters. Lord Panmure had, however, sent a telegraphic message to General Codrington, instructing him that where officers were desirous of having their chargers brought home to this country they should be allowed to do so at the public expense; and, he might add, that it was the desire of the War Office to act in a liberal spirit with regard to the claims of the officers in this respect.
COLONEL KNOX: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that this order emanated from the Commander in Chief?
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: Yes; and a similar arrangement will be made with respect to the chargers of English officers attached to the Turkish Contingent.

THE GERMAN LEGION—QUESTION.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he begged to ask whether any, and what, measures were being taken for the disbandment and return to their own country of the German mercenary legion embodied for the purposes of the late war?
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that the German Legion was only one of several corps embodied during the late war which would have to be disbanded now that the war was over. More than one-half the German Legion was in the East, and of course the regiments there would have to wait their turn, in common with the other portions of the British army, before they could be brought home. The troops composing those Foreign Legions were entitled to be sent to their homes on the Continent, or to the Colonies, according as they might elect, and orders had been sent that the men should state where they wished to go.
MR. MURROUGH: Am I to understand that the men belonging to these legions are entitled to be sent to our Colonies?
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: Yes; not as soldiers, but as emigrants.

THE CASE OF CELESTINA SOMNER— QUESTION.
MR. WARRENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the advisers of the Crown, in recommending a commutation of the sentence of death lately passed on Celestina Somner, at the Central Criminal Court, for the murder of her child, had obtained the Report and taken the opinion of the Judge by whom she had been tried; and, if so, whether there was any objection to laying them before the House?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Secretary of State was solely responsible for the advice given to Her Majesty on these matters, and it would be contrary to all precedent, unless very sufficient grounds could be shown to the contrary, that the opinions of Judges, confidentially communicated to the Secretary of State, should be laid before Parliament. No doubt it was usual, when petitions were presented stating facts which had not appeared on the trial, to refer those petitions to the Judge who tried the case. That course was taken in the present instance, but he did not feel himself justified in laying the opinion of the Judge before Parliament.

SCOTCH MILITIA—QUESTION.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War if it was intended to retain the services of any of the Scotch militia regiments; and, if so, whether the selection of them will depend on the reports which have been made with respect to their comparative strength, efficiency, and discipline, or on what other principle the selection would be made?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that it was not intended to maintain in an embodied state any of the Scotch militia regiments, and that, therefore, it was not necessary to make any selection.

SECRET TREATIES—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question, of which he had not been able to give him notice. He wished to know if it was true that a secret treaty had been entered into between England, France, and Austria, with respect to the territorial arrangement of Europe?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, if there were really a secret treaty, the noble Lord would excuse me from giving him the secret. I recollect my late Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) making a Motion for a Return of the way in which the secret service money was expended. There had been no concealed treaty, nor any besides the one laid upon the table.

THE EXPLOSION AT WOOLWICH— QUESTION.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, in the absence of the Clerk of the Ordnance, a question on a subject of very melancholy importance. A dreadful accident had occurred on Saturday, at Woolwich Arsenal, by which six men had lost their lives. Two different statements had been published, the one stating that the men were employed in making percussion powder for percussion caps; and the other, that they were employed in preparing fireworks. It was desirable that an official investigation should take place into the circumstances. He wished, therefore, to know whether the men were employed in the manufacture of percussion powder, or of the ingredients for fireworks?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he was unable to say whether the late explosion at Woolwich, which was attended
430
with such melancholy consequences, was caused by the manufacture of percussion caps or of fireworks.

THE BALLOT.
MR. HENRY BERKELEY: Sir, Pursuant to the notice I have given, I rise to renew my entreaties to this House to be allowed to bring in a Bill to relieve the Parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland from the deplorable and humiliating condition to which they are reduced, entirely through the instrumentality of open voting. It is, indeed, a hard and unwelcome task to press this great question on the House, year after year, and I deeply feel the kindness which has been extended to me. I almost fear, nevertheless, that many hon. Members to whom this question is obnoxious may apply to me the words of the poet, and say, "that I cleave the general ear with horrid speech." The task I have imposed on myself is almost a Sisyphean labour; but I know that the stone I roll ought to reach the summit of the hill, and that knowledge makes me contented with placing it half-way—confident in the belief that, if I fail to carry it further, that I am yet assisting the labours of those who, at no distant period, aided by the progress of education, the diffusion of knowledge, and a more just appreciation of the value of the franchise, will be enabled to demand that, as a right, which I entreat as a boon. Before I proceed to deal more directly with this great question, I will venture to point out the position it at present holds. When I last had the honour to address the House on this subject, I quoted the names of a vast number of distinguished gentlemen, both in and out of Parliament, who had supported the ballot at various times, and whose arguments and evidence must remain, though they might secede from the support of the measure. A great majority of these still maintain their conviction, unshaken. A few have deserted their former opinions; but this fact deserves notice, that those who have changed their opinions will be found, for the most part, to have changed their politics, and those who have recanted their opinions, and who have not deserted their politics, will, for the most part, be found to have changed their constituencies, and instead of being returned for large boroughs, they will have been returned for counties where protection to the voter is reckoned an heresy to the landowner, or they will be returned for those

431
rotten boroughs which were allowed to blur the fair face of the Reform Bill to please the Whig nobility, and from a participation in which they were unable to exclude the Tory nobility, and which are just as much their property as their houses in Belgrave, Berkeley, Grosyenor, or Portman Squares. The ballot ought not to be made a party question. I cannot argue it as such; but it is made so by the Tory party. The opposition which I meet with from the Tories I in no way complain of; to say the truth, it is manly, open, and decided. I cannot say so much for the Whig opposition to the measure. The leading Members of Whig Governments are just as bitterly opposed to the question as the Tory party; but they make it an open question, not for love of the ballot, but for love of their places, which they could not retain if they were to make it a close question, so marked and decided is the majority of their supporters in favour of the ballot. This must be to the select body of recusant Whig Ministers an exceedingly disagreeable question to cope with. When they attempt to reply to our arguments they are rewarded by Tory cheers, and they march into the lobby deserted by their friends, over whom they obtain a victory by pinning themselves to the tail of their foes. There are other circumstances which must be unpleasant to a Government calling itself Liberal. A careful analysis of the voters on this question shows that a vast majority of the great city constituencies, which have a will of their own, return Members who support the ballot, while the opposition to the measure is composed of Members representing counties, and nomination boroughs, where the electors have no will of their own. Now, while the majority of the Members of this House who are opposed to the ballot is considerable, the number of electors by whom they are returned is ridiculously small in proportion to their majority. Add to this, that the non-electors of the country are decidedly in favour of the ballot, and actually deprecate an extension of the suffrage without it; then, the fact stares you in the face, that if you were to ballot for the ballot throughout the length and breadth of the land, the majority in its favour would be enormous. I refer to these facts to show that no dismay need attend the position in which this great question stands. There is in this House a phalanx of 224 hon. Members, having at their back
432
the flower of the electoral strength of this country, determined to win this boon for the people, and when we look back to, antecedents, are we not encouraged to hope for success? How few years have elapsed since the attempt to abolish the corn laws was termed by the then first Minister of the Crown madness? And when, year after year, we followed Charles Pelham Villiers into the lobby, were we not viewed as a select body of hopeless lunatics, much pitied by sensible Whigs and sagacious Tories? Why, the country Gentlemen who counted us at the lobby doors used to look as if they feared we should bite them. All this passed away like a dissolving view, and then we were fated to see that celebrated race run by Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, to try who could first be in at the death of the corn laws. Would they ever have run that race if the people, booted, spurred, whip in hand, had not mounted on their backs and urged them to their speed? Then, I say of this question, nil desperandum. The same paucity of argument, and the same amplitude of votes, attended the question of the corn laws, as now attend the ballot. So completely one-sided is the argument of our present question, that there is not a puny editor of any petty paper, whether published in some village situated in some Irish bog, on a Scotch moor, on a Welsh mountain, or on an English plain, who, on this question, is not able to master the mighty weapon of The Times, with its Briarean power, and its host of talent. What new argument can I urge upon your attention? I can but refer to those arguments which I inherit from Mr. Grote, and which stand in the pages of Hansard unanswered, and unanswerable. I know what we must expect to be told—that the ballot is cowardly and un-English. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle is fond of saying so. Then I tell you that such assertions are a mockery to common sense, since it is plain that the army, the navy, the nobility, and commonalty of this country, being in the constant use of the ballot-box, according to your opinion, must be a pack of cowards. Before you deal again in this bold and bald assertion, be pleased to point put why it is cowardly and un-English to elect Members of Parliament by the ballot, and brave and British to elect every other possible functionary, to every other possible office in that way? The Duke of Somerset, who returns a Member for Totness, is

433
violently opposed to the ballot. The noble Lord, who is returned for that family borough, is, of course, in the family way on the subject of the ballot, and tells us, from the hustings, that it is cowardly and un-English. The speech of the noble candidate (Lord Gifford), was so remarkable, that I hope that the noble Member will, if present, favour us with an appendix to it. The noble Lord, it appears, is an advocate for open voting, it is so manly—it reminded him of a boxing-match between a couple of his constituents in a twenty-four foot ring. Now, I think the noble Lord has hit upon a most unlucky simile when he compares a manly, fair, stand-up fight in a twenty-four foot ring to a contested election, carried on by open voting. No doubt the noble Lord is a manly Englishman, and would like to see fair play, a fair stand-up fight, not between a heavy man and a light man, not between a weak man and a strong man, but between equally matched combatants. Then I tell the noble Lord that anything redolent of fair play is no type of open voting; but let me invite the House to take a look at the ring of open voting. What equally matched combatants have we there? There you have the thirteen stone landlord squaring away at the eight stone tenant at will. There you have the six foot high customer giving it left and right to the five feet high tradesman. There you have the strong creditor getting the weak debtor's head into chancery, and there you find the employers of all sorts fearfully outmatching the employed. And this is the ring in which the noble Member for Totness aspires to carry the lemon and sponge. In this ring my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton is a judicious bottle-holder; my noble Friend the Member for London, the great umpire, holding the watch and calling time; and at Totness may be found the Duke of Somerset throwing up his hat and challenging all comers, well knowing in his valorous discretion that no one will approach that ring but tenants at will and puny tradesmen. I wish the whole bevy of these noble Lords joy of their brave pursuit. It is English, I blush to confess. It is aristocratic and primogenitural, I acknowledge; but equally certain am I that it is cowardly, tyrannical, and unconstitutional. The noble Lord has missed the only true point of comparison between the boxing ring and open voting, and that is the tendency of both to brutality and demoralisation. There is another topic equally contrary to common sense and
434
sound argument upon which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton continues to dilate, and the noble Lord the Member for London to rejoice in. It is that the electors hold the franchise as a trust for the non-electors—ergo, you must have open voting, in order that the non-electors may ascertain for whom the electors vote, and so become aware whether their trutees have discharged their trusts properly, or have been guilty of a breach of trust. Now, Mr. Grote dealt with this argument successfully. Two years ago I endeavoured to demonstrate its insufficiency, and I got no reply. Sir William Molesworth, in, that luminous speech which he made in support of this question, shortly before his lamented death, put an extinguisher upon it—not a bit. Last Session it was up again, fresh as ever. Now, I invite you to meet the question as I put it. I will take your own position, and fight you on your own grounds. In the first place, I accept your interpretation, and will admit the elective franchise to be a trust delegated to the electors, to be used for the benefit of the non-electors. Here it is necessary that we should bear in mind the definition, of the electoral trust. On this, I presume, we cannot differ. We agree, then, that if an elector vote freely and indifferently for any candidate or candidates, unbiassed by intimidation and uninfluenced by reward, that he faithfully discharges his electoral trust. Now, you say, that in, order that you may know whether the elector be guilty of a breach of this electoral trust, you must have open voting. I put it to, your common sense, that open voting can furnish you with no information of the sort. Open voting can inform you whether an elector vote for A, B, or C, but not the motive which impels him to vote. The mere voting for A, B, or C, constitutes no breach of trust,—the motive which impels an elector to vote may form a breach of trust, but that fact you cannot arrive at by open voting; consequently open voting cannot do that which you pretend it can do, discover to the non-elector whether the elector have or have not discharged his trust faithfully, and therefore open voting renders no service to and confers no benefit upon the non-elector. Here, then, I have shown that the advantages of open voting are negative. Now, permit me to reverse the picture, and show you that the evils of open voting are positive—instead of conserving the electoral trust, it leads to a direct breach of it. Bribery is facilitated

435
by open voting. If you have the courage to wade deep into those foul annals of election profligacy, of which we have so unwholesome a collection, you will find that the purchaser of votes stands by the polling-booth and sees the vote delivered before he pays the price of it. The suborner will not trust the suborned. Take away the knowledge of how the elector votes—let there be no better security for the vote than the elector's honour—you upset the confidence of the dealer and destroy the very spirit of the market. So much for the breach of the electoral trust by reward. Now mark the breach of trust caused by intimidation. Intimidation lives by open voting; open voting is the breath of its nostrils, its vitality, its atmosphere; remove it out of that atmosphere, and it collapses and dies. The knowledge of how the elector votes enables punishment to follow the threat; take away that knowledge, and the threats of the intimidator become a bag of wind. I have now argued this point of the question on your own grounds, and I submit most respectfully that I have proved that, so far from open voting being a check upon a breach of electoral trust, that it is the direct means of that breach of trust taking place. I now venture to call the attention of the House to the existing state of the Ballot in America. I have the honour to belong to an association called the Ballot Society, which is in direct communication with gentlemen of high worth and respectability in America, Members of the Legislature, and others; and on their authority I have, in a former debate, shown the true state of the Ballot in America, yet the most vague, crude, and untrue statements continue to be thrown out. In the speech made by the noble Member for Tiverton, only last Session, the noble Lord asserted that—
"It was a great mistake to suppose that the Ballot was adopted in the United States to ensure secrecy,—it was only used as a convenient mode of taking votes for a good many officers at once."
Where the mistake rests, it is my duty to prove. It may be a startling assertion to many, yet I assure the House that the circumstances attending the Game Laws and the circumstances attending the Ballot in America, are extremely similar. In some States, Game Laws existed as early as the institution of the Republic; but in the early days of that Republic, the population was sparse, the aboriginal wilderness
436
was slightly encroached upon. Cultivation was not general, and consequently the protection of game was unnecessary; but as the country became more densely populated, and cultivation more general, it became necessary to pass laws for the protection of game, and the American Game Laws, in several States, are more stringent than the English Game Laws. Now, so it was with the Ballot. When the Republic was first instituted, the Ballot was the general mode of election; open voting in some States, indeed, existed, but this is worthy of attention, that where the Ballot originally existed, it has been adhered to invariably, whereas, the States which originally had open voting have, with very few exceptions, adopted the ballot. But, like the game laws, in the early days of the republic the ballot was not needed—no malversation of the franchise was attempted; but as America increased in wealth and importance, as she became not only a growing but a manufacturing country, as mighty cities arose, as great corporate bodies came into play—as her monied interests became varied, the franchise began to be regarded, and intimidation quickly took its stand by those voting urns where the ballot was loosely observed, and brought with it its concomitants, tyranny, suffering, and undue return of candidates; while in those States, such as Michigan, where the ballot was used in its integrity, the exact reverse was to be found. I will now call my witnesses, and then leave the House to judge who is mistaken, my noble Friend or myself. The first testimony I shall cite is that of Mr. Pierce, a gentleman of consideration residing in Massachusetts, with whom I have had the honour to correspond on the subject of protected voting. Mr. Pierce thus writes in a paper called the Dedham Gazette:—
"In Massachusetts and the manufacturing States intimidation is constantly practised; the manufacturers are more interested in the financial policy of the General Government, than the landlords of England were interested in the maintenance of her Corn Laws. A high tariff adds several per cent to their dividends, and the votes of their operatives may elect or defeat the advocates of a tariff. Many of them boldly avow their right to discharge those who vote against their peculiar interests; such operatives are sometimes retained, but they soon find that their wages are diminished by their political opinions. Recusant operatives are the first to be docked, and the first to be cut short or discharged when there is not work enough for all."
He then gives particular instances of this general practice—

437
"In the autumn of 1850, the Chairman of the Whig State Central Committee of Massachusetts, sent a circular to prominent Whigs in the contested towns, to use all the influence in their power over the men in their employ, or in any way under their control. The superintendent of the Boott Mills, Lowell, when called upon by two gentlemen, candidates for the Legislature, and asked whether he intended to discharge the operatives who voted the ten hour coalition ticket, replied, 'that the Corporation would discharge every man who voted that ticket.' A statement of the interview was published by these gentlemen, under their signatures, and its truth has never been denied or questioned."
Mr. Pierce adds the following paragraph taken from The New Bedford Mercury, a Whig paper in Massachusetts—
"Inspectors, be sure and attend early and late at the polls, so as to obtain each and every name of those Locofocos who vote the Locofoco free-trade wages' ticket for the selectmen and other town officers. It is of the greatest importance that a true and faithful list should be preserved and published, in order that the public may know them. It is not proper or right, that any one who is a friend to this town's prosperity, should aid, trade with, or employ men who will vote at once against its best interest, its only interest, the whaling business."
"At the time when the intimidation at elections, of which the above are instances, was practised, the system of voting in force in Massachusett's was this—'All votes were given by written or printed tickets containing only the names of the candidates voted for. These tickets were, by special enactment, required to be presented for deposit in the ballot-box open and unfolded. By standing at the polling place, any one wishing to know for whom the electors were voting, might ascertain the fact with the greatest ease.'"
The next document I propose to quote, is a letter from the Hon. Amasa Walker, ex-Secretary of State, who moved for a committee in the Legislature of Massachusetts, to consider of the malversation of the franchise. This committee was granted, and upon its report an Act passed the Legislature to cause the votes to be taken by a strictly secret ballot. Let Mr. Walker speak for himself; his letter is addressed to the Secretary of the Ballot Society in England, who had been instructed to obtain information from so high a source. Mr. Walker thus writes:—
"In Massachusetts corporations, formed for various industrial and financial purposes, give a peculiar character to the State. Individuals die; the corporation never dies. Individuals are, by the force of public sentiment, held morally responsible for their acts; corporations have no moral responsibility. They have no souls. Whatever the extent of their wealth, often amounting to many millions of dollars, and having the power of controlling the destinies of multitudes who hold their places, and even their very dwellings, as tenants at will, these corporations are always
438
placed under the management of a small board of directors, who, in turn, transfer their power to the hands of a single agent, or superintendent, for the time being vested with all the attributes of sovereignty which such corporations can confer. These companies, so organised and managed, scattered all over the commonwealth, united in sympathy and interest, form a sort of moneyed feudalism, and sway a mighty influence whenever they choose, as they often do, to enter the political arena. Many thousands of voters are in the service of these bodies, and up to the year 1851 were constantly exposed to their dictation at the ballot-box. In that year the law for 'the better security of the ballot' was enacted. Its history is as follows—
"The great struggle against the slave power, which first manifested itself in 1848, excited a strong interest, and caused the friends of freedom to feel how much their efforts were paralysed by the controlling influence which the Conservative Pro-slavery party was able to exert upon the masses by their power of intimidation at the polls. Hence they began to look with new and increased anxiety for some means of relief. Having the honour of a seat in the Massachusetts Senate in the year 1850, my mind was particularly directed to the subject, and I earnestly sought to devise some means by which the desired independence of the voter might be secured. While thus thinking upon the subject, it suddenly occurred to me (for I had never heard it suggested) that the true method was to enclose the ballot in an envelope, and then, having sealed the same, place it in the ballot-box. As soon as the idea presented itself to my mind, I felt assured that it was the true one, and accordingly, without an hour's delay, offered an order in the Senate, 'to inquire what measures could be taken for the better security of the ballot. In compliance with the Motion, a joint Committee of two from the State and five from the House of Representatives was appointed. Notwithstanding a majority of this Committee belonged to that party in the Senate which has always manifested the greatest hostility to a free ballot, the plan proposed commended itself so much by its simplicity and efficiency, and the evidence presented before the Committee of the great pvactical evils of the old system was so conclusive, that a majority of the Committee agreed upon a Report and Bill, a copy of which I send you herewith. I believe, Sir, I have now answered, however imperfectly, the various inquiries proposed to me, and, in conclusion, have only to add that I feel a dee interest in the object for which your society is organised. I earnestly hope you will succeed, and that speedily. The ballot will be an inestimable boon to the people of Great Britain. It will infuse new force and vitality into the Government—it will aid in every popular reform—it will tend to elevate and improve the condition of the people, and when once established, will be regared with favour by all who feel an interest in the welfare and happiness of the country. That you will have the sealed ballot whenever you have a ballot at all, I have no doubt. You will, I am sure, insist upon it, and not be put off with any half-way measure. Our whole experience leads us to feel that the sealed ballot is what the people are entitled to, and what they must have if they would secure their greatest good. Such a ballot has bitter enemies—here, as I suppose it has with you. All who

439
wish for exclusive privileges, for class legislation, for the rule of the aristocratic few, are, without exception, opposed to it, while all who wish that the people should govern, that all should have equal privileges and rights, that legislation should be general, instead of special, and for the benefit of the whole, instead of a part, are the active friends of the new mode of voting. It is the surest test of political character we have ever had in this country, and I presume it will be found so in yours. Should any further information be needed, I shall be happy to furnish all in my power, and any additional documents that may be wanted. Hoping to hear of the continued progress of your excellent society, and of its final and triumphant success, I have the hour to be, your obedient Servant,
"AMASA WALKER."
I now trouble the House with the report of the committee obtained by Mr. Walker, which is to the following effect:—
"The ballot in this Commonwealth, in its true character, is but a name. Yet your committee are confident that this is not, and never was, the wish of the present or any past Legislature of Massachusetts. They feel assured that it is, and ever has been, an object of sincere desire, to secure to each citizen the free and unbiassed exercise of his elective franchise, and that the present system was adopted, only because no other at the time seemed feasible. The progress of events, however, has at length brought to our minds a mode by which the rights of the citizen may be fully secured, and yet the most effectual guarantees against fraudulent voting obtained. The use of letter envelopes, which has within a few years been introduced into this country, has, it is believed, suggested a very simple, cheap, and efficacious remedy, for all the evils which have heretofore been complained of. If each voter be required to place his ballot in a sealed envelope, and in that manner deposit the same in the ballotbox, no one can know, unless he chooses to announce his vote, as he has an undoubted right to do, the character of the ticket or the persons for whom he has voted. No man acts irrespective of surrounding influences. Some are more independent of circumstances than others, but there are none, whatever their condition, who do not sometimes act under more or less constraint, in giving an open and easily recognised ballot. This will, we think, appear probable if we take into view the following considerations:—In the first place, almost every individual is attached to some political party. He feels that, on the whole, his party is nearer right than any other party, and wishes to act with it. But if he be a true man, he will never give up his conscience to the dictation of others. He will always reserve to himself the right of deciding upon men and measures, and if either are presented which he cannot approve, he will wish, silently, at least, to refuse his concurrence. But this he cannot now do. Nothing can be more imperious, more absolute, than the dictation of party spirit. It knows no mercy; it permits no disobedience to its behests; it is satisfied only with the most entire submission to its mandates. This is the character of all parties; there is no difference. If a candidate be presented, no matter how obnoxious, how unsuitable, every man of the party must give him his
440
vote under the pains and penalties of excommunication.
If party feelings run high, the polls are narrowly watched, and the unfortunate individual, who would fain obey the dictates of his own breast, must deposit his vote,—for it can scarce be called a ballot,—under the espionage of party leaders, whose eagle-eyed vigilance he can hardly hope to escape, and whose angry frowns he may feel quite unwilling to encounter. Is it not so? And, if so, shall we hesitate to provide, if we can, an easy and effectual remedy,—a remedy by which the peaceable and retiring citizen may be allowed to express his sincere convictions at the ballot-box, without incurring a merciless storm of party denunciation? Is it any reflection on such a man, to suppose that he would gladly avoid, if he could, so unpleasant an alternative? And ought he not to have the privilege of doing so? Shall a man, in the exercise of his elective franchise, be obliged to meet obstacles of this nature, if there is no necessity for it? Again, in a community like ours, no inconsiderable portion stand to each other in the relation of employer and employed. We need not suppose that the employer utters any threats; we need not suppose that there are any overt acts of intimidation, but will not an influence, greater or less, be exerted over the minds of persons thus situated? Is it unreasonable to suppose that some, at least, under such circumstances, choose to forego the right of suffrage, rather than exercise it contrary to their own convictions, or the well-known wishes of their employers? Again, many persons are placed in the relation of tenants, tenants at will often, others that of debtors. Will neither of these clauses ever be likely to feel embarrassment in the expression of their political preferences at the polls? In addition to all these influences, there are others of a general nature, from which no one, whether high or low, rich or poor, are wholly exempt, the influence of social life. No man ordinarily wishes to offend a neighbour or make an enemy, and rather than incur the hazard of doing either, how many will be induced to forego, in some degree, their real preferences and opinions? The right of suffrage is the most sacred of all political rights, and should be most carefully guarded. If the juryman, in the exercise of his functions, be required to be free from all bias, and to act without fear, favour, affection, or hope of reward, how much more ought the citizen, in the discharge of his highest duty, that of electing his rulers, to be equally free from all bias whatever? If we are bound to guard the jury-box, are we not still more bound to guard the ballot-box, that fountain and source of all political power, and surest safeguard of public liberty? In view of these considerations and facts, your committee, regarding the subject as worthy the attention of the Legislature of this Commonwealth, respectfully report the accompanying Bill.
"AMASA WALKER,
WILLIAM KIMBALL,
JOHN M. BLISS,
GEORGE COWDREY,
CHARLES F. BATES."
Now, then, I submit to the House, that in this plain unvarnished tale we have reflected back to us a picture of intimidation perfectly English. The intimidation of the

441
aristocracy in England is rivalled by the intimidation of a pro-slavery feudalism in America. The intimidation of the landocracy in England is rivalled by the intimidation of a mercantile confederacy in America. Corrupt corporate bodies in England may shake hands with corrupt corporate bodies in America, and a monied oligarchy is the electoral bane of both countries. The Americans put their shoulders to the wheel to drag themselves out of this moral mire; you, on the contrary, prefer to stick in the mud, and to wallow in corruption, rather than part with the power of intimidation. You cannot deny the scandalous state into which England is plunged at every general election; and when these evils come before you, then, indeed, you produce some miserable abortion in the shape of an Act of Parliament, and pretend that it is a remedy. Take, for instance, your Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. It has done just that which you intended it should do—nothing! Look to the accounts of contested elections since that Act has been in force. Bribery rampant, intimidation roaring through the land. I invite the House to listen to a few light details of our amended electoral system. Take the following description of the scenes discovered at the last Boston election, from a London paper of March 6th of this present year:—
"Will it be believed, after all our Acts upon bribery and corruption, and the pains and penalties held in terrorum over the heads of the free and independent, that in the borough of Boston there exists, at the present moment, a confederacy of freemen and electors, known as the 'Rock Club,' who march through the town with a green banner and a fife and drum, making known to the rival candidates that there they are, ready to be purchased, and to sell their votes to the highest bidder? No later than Tuesday morning last, a deputation from this body, numbering some twenty voters, waited upon the agent of Colonel Sleigh, and requested to be informed how much per head that gentleman was willing to pay for their votes. Disgusted at such corrupt and abominable proceedings, with a spirit which is deserving of all praise, Colonel Sleigh spurned the aid of such myrmidons, and withdrew from a contest in which honour was not to be achieved even by a candidate who goes in first at the head of a Boston poll. When it was announced that the Independent candidate would withdraw, his committee marched into his rooms, and each formally presented bills thus worded—'To attendance upon Colonel Sleigh, in committee and canvass, £1 10s.' And these are 'free and independent voters,' who have a voice in returning to Parliament one of the representatives of the country. The more we see of the present electoral system the more we are satisfied that no Act now in force has the power to check bribery and corruption."
442
I now take Bath, and give you the evidence of both candidates as to intimidation:—
"Mr. Tite said: He would come now to another screw, and connected with it was the ballot. He was a man who could always hold up his hand and vote as he pleased, caring for no man; but it was a very different thing with many amongst the constituency of Bath, where the screw was put on. His learned friend had suggested that he knew of one case in which a supporter of his was the victim; he could name five or six distinct cases where the screw had been put on his friends. Mr. WHATELEY: And I know of ten or twelve cases since I have been here. Mr. TITE: If that were so the greater was the necessity for the ballot on both sides. I have learnt a lesson at Barnstaple, where exclusive dealing is carried on so far that the names of all who voted for the Whig candidate were entered in the blue-book; and 'so they are here.' A poor man yesterday said, when I asked for his vote; and told him it was a mere question of voting—'No, sir, it is not only my vote, which I would willingly give, if I dare; but the bread of my family is dependent upon it.'"
Before I quit the west of England, pray let me present you with the, chaste and immaculate borough of Wells; it sets an edifying example.. It has been said that when Greek meets Greek then is the tug of war. But I say, when Whig meets Whig then is the tug of war; and depend upon it that when that happens, the constituency is sure to be well double-thonged between them. I give you an account of the proceedings of the Government whipper-in from the London Standard, and of the Opposition whipper-in from the Globe. The Standard says—
"About a fortnight before Mr. Tudway's death, when all hope of his recovery was at an end, this little city was visited by its other representative, the right hon. W. G. Hayter, the patronage secretary of the Treasury. For ten days successively the right hon. gentleman drove punctually into the city from the friend's house where he was staying, three miles distant, and remained until late in the evening, perambulating the streets, calling upon various electors, accosting them, and making the most affectionate inquiries into their welfare. Singularly enough, while he was here, a rumour got into circulation that still more patronage was to be placed at the disposal of the Wells electors, notwithstanding the astounding published list of seventy places already bestowed, and, by way of an earnest, an odd berth or two was given to deserving applicants. The mayor has issued a notice containing various clauses of the 'Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854,' to warn the electors against the consequences of bribery and treating. The clause having reference to the promises of place, office, and employment, to procure votes, has an especial bearing upon the recent visit of Mr. Hayter."
The Globe, a Government paper, of the 26th November, 1855, has selected the following article from the Bath Journal, and thus describes the Tory doings:—

443
"There remained, in the evening of the day of nomination, some twenty undecided voters. The majority of these, it was believed, would vote for the Liberal candidate. During the night it oozed out that two important personages, well known at a notorious club in London, were doing an extensive business at the 'Swan,' and when the morning came, by some mysterious process of persuasion, these 'independent electors' all went to the poll for the Tory candidate. The disgraceful scenes which occurred during the poll are almost beyond description. The 'dab-in-the-hand men,' as they are termed, were marched to poll guarded by an escort, like deserters to the guard-room—or felons to their cells. The Tory landlord might be seen dragging up his refractory tenant, and the patroniser of some small tradesman in close attendance upon his helpless and unfortunate victim. We saw one 'hanging-back' freeman pulled, pushed, and carried to the hall by four independent voters of the immaculate order, and, of course, having had so much kindness and attention bestowed upon him, he had no alternative but to vote for the Crimean hero—or rather absentee. The clerical influence, strange as it may seem, was used to a great extent. Men who were pledged to the Serjeant were almost pestered to death by their impertinent annoyances; and threatened with the loss of their favours if they did not regard their promise as a joke, and vote for their 'darling Captain.' 'The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act' of 1854, is a mere farce, and of no more value than so much waste paper."
Well, Sir, at Leominster there has been; an election, and of so little use has been the corrupt practices prevention Act, that the electors petition for the ballot. There has been an election for Rochester, and the hon. Member just returned stated on: the hustings, that the proceedings he had witnessed had made him an advocate for the ballot. There has been an election, too, for the borough of Midhurst. Now this borough is an appurtenance to the Cowderay property. An auctioneer in describing the advantages of that estate, might say, with truth, the woods abound with game, the rivers with fish, and at the disposal of the proprietor are wild rabbits and tame electors. The present owner of the borough, Lord Egmont, has evinced great judgment and good taste in the selection of his Members. He has replaced his own nephew, one of the most popular Members who ever sat in this House, now the worthy representative of the University of Cambridge, by another hon. and learned Member whose literary talents are known to fame. It is not with these hon. Members that I am at war, but I am at war to the knife, with the system which they uphold and the abominations thereof which they conceal. Take, for instance, the speech of the late candidate for
444
Midhurst, Mr. Warren, made upon his election and reported in the papers.
"I never read such playful irony. The hon. and learned Gentleman actually told the electors of Midhurst that he canvassed them for eleven successive days in an easterly wind. The result was, that after enduring more than Crimean hardships, he had arrived at the conclusion that all their votes were unfettered. He then threw up his hat—I mean Lord Egmont's hat—and challenged all and sundry to do battle with him; and when nobody came, he told the electors that he was a proud man, and their affectionate brother. I really cannot account for this speech, otherwise than by supposing that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been studying his own pleasant novel, called "Ten Thousand a-Year," and was giving the electors a strong touch of his favourite character, 'Oily Gammon.'"
Sir, I know not how my Motion may be met, but as my opponents seldom attack the vanguard of the argument, assailing its flanks and looking out for unguarded points, let me inspect my defences. Perhaps I may be accused of making an onslaught on the aristocracy. To that I reply, that I cannot in one speech embrace the wide field of argument and instances which the ballot presents. As certain aristocrats have thrust themselves lately into the melée, I have repelled their attacks. It may be said then, you would exclude the Members of noble families from the House of Commons. I would do no such thing. I would merely take from the heads of noble Houses, the unconstitutional power of commanding seats in this House for their nominees. Now, I utterly disbelieve that the scions of the aristocracy would be excluded from Parliament. I believe that the names of Villiers, Stanley, Walpole, or Duncan, represented as they are, would find their way into the Roll of the Commons House, ballot or no ballot; but, I would take from Clarendon, Derby, Egmont, or Camper-down, the power of forcing them there. In former speeches, I have placed before the House the tyranny of the democracy and their unconstitutional interference with the franchise. In short, Sir, I have attacked the malversation of the franchise wherever I have found it, without reference to party, rank, or station. One word in conclusion to administrative reformers. You had a Committee, I warned you how it would end. It resulted in the complete; exculpation and glorification of Mr. Russell, the Times correspondent; any other result was impracticable in a House of Commons which carries the peoples' purse, but is compulsorily elected by the House

445
of Lords. I call upon all administrative reformers, then, to vote for this question. By giving protection to the elector, you admit the genial sun of the people to shine into the Commons House, and thus, and thus only, can you prevent salutary measures of reform from being blighted by the cold shade of aristocracy.
SIR DE LACY EVANSseconded the Motion.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he thought that there was a great discrepancy between the general terms in which the hon. Gentleman had addressed the House and the terms of his Motion. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward not one single individual case in support of his general statement. In spite of the connection of the hon. Gentleman with the Ballot Society, in spite of his sympathy with the grievances of oppressed voters, he had not been able apparently to furnish the House with a single instance of intimidation. It was not enough for the hon. Member to come down to that House and say intimidation is carried on which should not be carried on, and therefore give us the Ballot; for no conclusion could be more illogical. The hon. Gentleman ought to prove that the Ballot would be a protection to conscientious voters, and to prove that, he apprehended would be rather difficult. Suppose an election had taken place, and afterwards the landlord went to his tenant, or the wealthy manufacturer to his tradesman, and asked him what way he had voted—if the tenant or tradesman had voted for the friend of his patron the Ballot would be superfluous; if he had not, and confessed the fact, the Ballot would be no protection, nor would it be if he refused to answer, so that, in point of fact, it would only be a protection to the man who having voted against the friend of his patron denied that he had done so, that was to say, it would be a protection only to the liar, the hypocrite, and the knave. Was that portion of the community so deserving of protection that for their interests alone the House ought to consent to introduce a system of secret suffrage? Did the hon. Gentleman suppose that those persons who fancied they had a right to influence the conduct of voters would allow themselves to be defeated by the Ballot-box or by sealed envelopes? No. They would seek to exercise the influence in spite of all enactments, and they would be the more excited to do so by a gauntlet of defiance being thrown down to them by the Legislature. Gentleman
446
men who at present would reject the idea of espionage as discreditable would, in that case, hardly hesitate to stoop to any means within their reach in order to baffle and defeat the attempts of a Legislature which sought to deprive them—vainly as he believed would be the case—of that influence to which, as they imagined, their position legitimately entitled them. A tenant would then be whispered out of his holding, and while, at present, he only ran the risk of losing his farm if he voted against the wishes of his party, he would, under the uncertainty engendered by the proposed measure, be equally opposed to that risk if he voted with them. Harassed by the spy and maligned by the informer, he would then sigh for the time when every vote was recorded in open day, and when he could point to the vote-book in his favour. He (Mr. Peacocke) would appeal to the real friends of purity of election—and he was doubtful if he could class hon. Gentlemen opposite among them—to say whether they could regard the passing of the Ballot with any other feelings than those of alarm. You might then be certain that there existed in any particular locality a perfectly organised system of corruption, and yet you would he powerless to defeat it. You would then have electors disposed of, he supposed, according to the most approved principles of political economy—bought in the cheapest and sold in the dearest market. The hon. Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) had declared that there would be no corruption, because, if vote by ballot prevailed, the candidate could not trust to the promise of the elector, and because no one man could put trust in the promise of another. He would pass over this optimist view of human nature taken by the hon. Member for Bristol, but he would appeal to experience to say whether, in practice; that had been found to have been the case. Why, the first instance of organised corruption, discovered was at Shoreham, in 1771, which place was bought and sold by the Christian Club, a club conducted on such strictly Evangelical principles that they would have been dear to the heart of even the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor). Later on they learnt that the highest sense of honour pervaded the electors of Sudbury, and that at St. Albans the electors adhered to their plighted word with a chivalry which would have done honour to a Talbot or a Peterborough. But the hon. Gentleman had alluded to the United States. Now, he would take leave

447
to rend an extract from the New York Herald, Written immediately after the election of 1852, to show the hon. Member for Bristol that, at all events, an organised system of corruption was consistent with a system of secret voting:—
"Look at the proceedings on Thursday last in the Nineteenth Ward—voters carried to the ballot-box in scores of waggons from various lacalities, and in other wards hundreds of Democrats voting for Scott or for Fillmore—men ignorant and steeped in crime—picked up in all the purlieus of the city, and purchased at a dollar a head, and some, it is said, as low as fifty cents, to deposit in the ballot-box a vote they had never seen. This demoralising process is playing fearful havoc with our institutions, rendering them, to a vast extent, not only a nullity, but perverting them to mischief, to a bad and corrupt legislation, and to the maladministration of public justice. The judicious grieve at these results, but what can they do to arrest the progress of the evil?"
And he was told that the friends of purity of election in the United States so far differed in opinion from the hon. Gentleman that they believed the only system which would remedy the evil would be the introduction of open voting. If secret voting were established in this country his belief was, that our electoral system would be exposed, not only to the danger of an organised corruption, but to an organised system of fraud. How could you insure that the number of votes would rightfully correspond with the number of voters? He was told the other day of a case in which the members of a Horticultural Society in the north of England were called upon to vote, and when the ballot-box was opened forty-nine votes were found recorded, though only thirty-seven persons were entitled to vote. Now, if a system of fraud such as he had described prevailed in so small a matter as this, to what an extent might it not be expected in the exciting case of an electoral struggle and under the maddening influences of party conflict? But he would go further than this and would ask—Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How was it proposed to prevent fraud on the part of those Who received the votes, guarded the ballot-boxes, and declared the result of the election? How were they to guard against the corruption of the returning officers and their deputies? The ballot, however, would in one way check corruption among the constituencies, because it would then be cheaper and far more certain to bribe the officials and returning officers. But even in the most improbable contingency that you would have a pure
448
election under a system of secret voting— would the losing side ever be brought to think so, much more to acknowledge it? When the Emperor of the French was elected by an immense majority, was it not everywhere proclaimed and believed that that election Was the result of unfair means? Did the House suppose that it would be otherwise here? Would not the losing side always say that the victory had been gained by fraud or achieved by corruption, and did they think public opinion would be uninfluenced by such clamour? Would the public be disposed to place confidence in hon. gentlemen as being the real exponents of the opinions of their constituents? Would the public even place confidence in that House itself, when composed of members elected under such a system? He did not believe any system could he devised which was so calculated to bring Representative Government into general odium and contempt. He had heard of invectives hurled against the Emperor of Austria because His Majesty had denied Representative Government to his subjects, and the Emperor of the French had also been exposed to an immense amount of vituperation on the same grounds, but neither the bayonets of the Austrian nor the artillery of the French Emperor would, he believed, more entirely subvert Parliamentary Government, and destroy its reputation and authority; than the measure which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol now proposed in the pseudo-interest of popular government. When, too, the hon. Member did not purpose to extend his proposal to voting in that House, he (Mr. Peacock) could not help regarding it as a measure inconsistent upon the very face of it. That House was placed, with reference to its constituencies, precisely in the same position as the constituencies were placed with reference to the nation at large. Perhaps he should be told that Members of that House were not subject to the influence of corruption and intimidation. Now, he did not mean to say that hon. gentlemen were open to the vulgar influences of a bribe in the shape of a £5 note; but he would appeal to the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) to know if hon. gentlemen were indifferent to all the social influences which could be brought to bear upon them, and whether votes in that House were always given under the influence of the purest patriotism? Moreover, was not the intimidation

449
practised by constituencies palpable and undenied? Were the votes of that House always a fair reflex of the opinions of its Members? He could give many instances in which one language was used in the lobby, while the vote was given in an opposite direction. But it would, perhaps, be said that, whereas the influence exerted by landlords over their tenants was an illegal one, that exerted by constituents over their representatives was in harmony with the spirit of our constitution. Now, he thought that any one who used such an argument had much to learn—had to learn that they were not sent to that House as delegates to reflect the passing opinions of their constituents, and to vary like a barometer with the state of the weather but that they were here to legislate according to what they believed to be for the welfare of the whole community; and if, therefore, secret voting ought to be conferred upon the electoral body, they also had a right to claim the same immunity from intimidation and the same security from pressure from without. If the Ballot were conferred on the electoral body, and not on that House, they would establish an oligarchy of £10 or £8 householders, as the case might be, who, wielding an irresponsible authority by exercising a secret suffrage, would be enabled to fashion legislation in a form favourable to their own class interests, and in course of time doubtless shift the national burdens from their own shoulders. Against the possibility of such a danger it was the duty of the Legislature to guard. Those with whom he acted did not oppose the Ballot upon anti-liberal principles. They opposed it in the name and interest of the unrepresented and unenfranchised classes, who were entitled to know in what way the suffrage was exercised by those to whom that sacred trust had been delegated. They opposed it because they were unwilling to sow the seeds of a general feeling of suspicion and distrust, which would render the constitutional form of Government a curse instead of a blessing. They opposed it because they were unwilling to expose the national representation to a system of universal lying and organised hypocrisy.
MR. H. BERKELEY, in reply, said, the cause of the riot in New York, which had been referred to, was open and not secret voting.
Motion made and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect
450
the electors of Great Britain and Ireland by taking the votes by way of Ballot."
The House divided: —Ayes 111; Noes 151: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Ingram, H.

Adair, Col.

Johnstone, J.

Alcock, T.

Keating, H. S.

Atherton, W.

Kershaw, J.

Ball, J.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Baxter, W. E.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Berkeley, F. W. F.

Langston, J. H.

Bethell, Sir R.

Langton, H. G.

Biddulph, R. M.

Laslett, W.

Biggs, W.

Lee, W.

Black, A.

M'Cann, J.

Blake, M. J.

M'Mahon, P.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Magan, W. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Mangles, R. D.

Brockman, E. D.

Martin, J.

Brotherton, J.

Martin, P. W.

Butler, C. S.

Massey, W. N.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

Meagher, T.

Challis, Mr. Alderman.

Miall, E.

Chambers, M.

Moffatt, G.

Chaplin, W. J.

Muntz, G. F.

Coffin, W.

Murrough, J. P.

Collier, R. P.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Crossley, F.

North, F.

Currie, R.

O'Brien, J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

O'Connell, Capt. D.

De Vere, S. E.

Oliveira, B.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Otway, A. J.

Duncan, Visct.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Duncan, G.

Pellatt, A.

Esmonde, J.

Phillimore, J. G.

Ewart, W.

Pilkington, J.

Ewart, J. C.

Ricardo, S.

Ferguson, Col.

Rice, E. R.

Ferguson, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

FitzGerald, J. D.

Scobell, Capt.

Forster, C.

Seymour, W. D.

Fox, W. J.

Smith, J. B.

Freestun, Col.

Somerville. rt. hn. Sir W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Glyn, G. C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Goderich, Visct.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Sullivan, M.

Greene, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Grenfell, C. W.

Thornely, T.

Hadfield, G.

Tite, W.

Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Hankey, T.

Vivian, H. H.

Hastie, Alex.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hastie, Arch.

Warner, E.

Headlam, T. E.

Watson, W. H.

Heywood, J.

Wickham, H. W.

Holland, E.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Willcox, B. M'G.

Hughes, H. G.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Berkeley, F. H. F.

Ingham, R.

Evans, Sir De L.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Annesley, Earl of

Baring, rt. hon Sir F. T.

Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

Barrington, Visct.

Bagge, W.

Barrow, W. H.

Baillie, H. J.

Beckett, W.

451

Bennet, P.

Langton, W. Gore

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Bernard, Visct.

Leslie, C. P.

Bignold, Sir S.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

Blackburn, P.

Liddell, hon. H. G.

Blandford, Marquess of

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Lowther, Capt.

Buck, Col.

Lushington, C. M.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Macartney, G.

Burrowes, R.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Cabbell, B. B.

Malins, R.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Manners, Lord G.

Cayley, E. S.

Masterman, J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Maunsell, T. P.

Christy, S.

Miles, W.

Codrington, Sir W.

Michell, W.

Coles, H. B.

Monck, Visct.

Colvile, C. R.

Moncreiff, J.

Conolly, T.

Mowbray, J. R.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

Naas, Lord

Davies, D. A. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Davies, J. L.

Newport, Visct.

Deedes, W.

Nisbet, R. P.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

Ossulston, Lord

Duncombe, hon. A.

Palmer, Roundell

Dundas, G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Dungarvan, Visct.

Patten, Col. W.

Dunne, Col.

Peel, Gen.

Egerton, Sir P.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Phillimore, R. J.

Emlyn, Visct.

Portal, M.

Euston, Earl of

Pritchard, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Pugh, D.

Ferguson, Sir J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Robertson, P. F.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Russell, Lord J.

Galway, Visct.

Russell, F. C, H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Rust, J.

Gilpin, Col.

Scott, hon. F.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Shirley, E. P.

Gladstone, Capt.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gooch, Sir E. S.

Smith, W. M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Smollett, A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stafford, A.

Grosvenor, Earl.

Stirling, W.

Gurney, J. H.

Stracey, Sir H. J.

Gwyn, H.

Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

Halford, Sir H.

Stuart, Capt.

Hall, Gen.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hamilton, G. A.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hamilton, rt. hn. R.C.N.

Vance, J.

Handcock, hon. Capt. H.

Vane, Lord H.

Harcourt, Col.

Verner, Sir W.

Hardynge, hon. C. S.

Walcott, Adm.

Hardy, G.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

Walter, J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Warren, S.

Heard, J. I.

Welby, Sir G. E,

Heathcote, Sir W.

Whitbread, S,

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Whitmore, H.

Holford, R. S.

Wilson, J.

Horsfall, T. B.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hotham, Lord

Wyndham, Gen.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Wyndham, W.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Jolliffe, H. H.

Wynne, rt. hon. J.

Jones, Adm.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Kelly, Sir F.

TELLERS.

King, J. K.

Peacocke, G. M. W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Vyse, Col.

JUDGES AND CHANCELLORS.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill "to take away from all Archbishops, Bishops, and Ecclesiastical Persons in England and Wales, all power of appointing Judges and Chancellors, and vesting such powers in the Lord Chancellor." The abuse which the Bill was intended to remedy had been repeatedly admitted as leading to the mal-administration of justice. Indeed, many instances of persons being completely ruined through the ignorance of those before whom they had to plead in the Ecclesiastical Courts had occurred. At present, if anything were to happen to one of the Ecclesiastical Judges, the person upon whom the appointment of his successor would devolve was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, however estimable for his attainments, could scarcely be held a fit judge of purely secular qualifications. Had he thought there was a chance of a comprehensive measure of ecclesiastical reform being carried, he never would have brought forward a Bill dealing only with a small detail of the question; but as the Session was likely to pass away, owing to the collision of interests, without the Government being able to carry such a measure, he felt bound not to let the opportunity pass without attempting to overthrow an abuse so universally recognised.
MR. HADFIELD, in seconding the Motion said, there were several Bills relating to the Ecclesiastical Courts now before Parliament, and he could wish to be informed in what position they stood. They appeared to be all at a deadlock. He should like to know the cause which obstructed their progress. There was at present an absolute failure of justice in the Ecclesiastical Courts. He trusted the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give some explanation on the subject.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that with respect to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, he did not believe it was the intention of the Government, any more than it was, he apprehended, the wish of the House, to offer any opposition to it. To himself it was a matter of deep regret, that a crying evil which existed in this particular department of justice had remained as yet ineffectually remedied; as, indeed, it would have been, if the Bill introduced into the House of Lords had not met with an opposition that proved fatal to it there. He thought that the evidence collected upon the subject had

453
proved in the most the appointments hitherto made of Chancellors and other judicial persons, and nominated by the Archbishops and Bishops had been in many instances most unsatisfactory. The Government had, therefore, hoped that a measure framed in accordance with the opinions of a great number of gentlemen on both sides of the House would have been successful and passed into a law. However, for the moment that measure had been delayed. The Government, therefore, would be the last persons to oppose the introduction of a measure which went at all events to settle a branch of the question; and the more particularly as it would come under consideration simultaneously with the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill and the Divorce Bill. Besides, it was really absolutely necessary that something should be done to regulate such appointments for the future; because, by the passing of those measures, the source of revenue of those judicial officers would be altogether taken away. He should, therefore, not recommend any opposition being given to the introduction of the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend. With respect to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), he certainly thought that if the hon. Member would turn over the record of their proceedings, he would find abundant reasons why the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill had not been proceeded with. He could undoubtedly testify that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had been always most anxious to facilitate the discussion of that measure. But the House would recollect how it had been occupied—let him hope it was in a manner unexampled—for the last two Sessions. It was, indeed, to be desired, that the House would now at length apply itself to useful legislation, instead of spending so much of its time in what he would venture to designate, unprofitable talk and discussion. It therefore lay with the House itself to determine whether, at the close of this Session, it would present to the country the same wretched catalogue of measures, only introduced to be abandoned, or whether it would address itself seriously to the work of legislation. At the same time he could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) that their time had not altogether been unemployed, for he was happy to say his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), who had charge of another Bill—he could not call it a rival Bill, as it only differed from his own in
454
one or particulars—had held repeated discussions with him, which resulted in to an their coming to an understanding with regard to, a measure, and that with a perfect unanimity of opinion, save in one or two particulars, as to which the House would have to determine. He believed, therefore, that the moment had come when they were about to consolidate those institutions, and remove the great abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts—a measure that had been desired for now upwards of thirty years. He hoped to carry a Bill to that effect during the course of the present Session.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must confess that I have listened with some regret and some surprise to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. My hon. and learned Friend has lectured the House upon its habit of permitting its time to be wasted in idle talk upon matters of no general public interest, and gravamen of the offence of the House is, that it has not received with sufficient favour the Bills introduced by my hon. and learned Friend, or, what is really more to the purpose, that my hon. and learned Friend's conduct of those measures has not been received with sufficient favour to give an opportunity of bringing them under discussion. If this House will waste its time in idle talk and neglect the public business, I certainly do not know what right any one Member has to take upon himself to be the corrector of its faults and follies. In that respect it rather becomes us to recognise ourselves as joint sharers in the offence, and by no means to assume a position of such marked superiority, such exemption from common failings, and such distinction from the ordinary feelings of mankind, as is implied in the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has laid the blame upon the House because the House has not passed his Bills with reference to Ecclesiastical Courts and Testamentary Jurisdiction, but I venture to put it to my hon. and learned Friend that the duty of the Government to this House and the country is not discharged by the simple introduction of Bills into this House, and that there is nothing by which a Government does more damage to the public service than when it consents to the introduction of Bills without any rational chance of their passing. Now, Sir, if there really be any one subject more than another upon which this observation is applicable it is the subject of these Ecclesiastical Courts, for the proceedings in one

455
year after another have taken a form so nearly identical that one can almost stereotype the speeches delivered there. Some hon. Gentleman gets up in the early part of the Session and declares that the Ecclesiastical Courts are no better than an Augean stable, and, in answer to him, either the leader of the House or one of the Law Officers of the Crown rises and, amid the most enthusiastic cheers, says they are no better than an Augean stable, and that it is time the Augean stable was swept. And certainly if any stable, Augean or otherwise, could be effectually swept by means of a torrent of abuse the Ecclesiastical Courts would have been swept long ago. But when the Bills come to be discussed, the Gentlemen who are so fond of introducing them immediately fall foul of one another. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General says the jurisdiction ought to become a Chancery jurisdiction. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: No!] Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman is understood to say so. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) says it ought to become a Common Law jurisdiction. Others say it ought to become a County Court jurisdiction. Others want a separate Court of Probate; in point of fact, quot homines tot sententiœ, there are about as many remedies as there are legal Members in the House, and that number in, it must be admitted, not a small one. What I really would point out is, that the case of the Ecclesiastical Courts for legislation is a very strong one. It is a case urgently calling for the attention of this House, but no good whatever can result from the annual introduction of Bills, some by private Members and some by the Government, until some Administration shall have applied its mind seriously to the subject, and, having determined that the question is a question to be dealt with seriously, and as a matter of urgency, shall endeavour to use the power it possesses in this House to carry some measure into effect. I do not think the present Administration—I am bound to say I am not aware the last Administration, or the Administration before the last, or the Administration before that, or any Administration before those, within my recollection—has ever seriously set its shoulder to the wheel in this matter; and really it is passing off delusion upon the country when you allow these speeches to be made, and make these speeches, and talk of an "Augean stable," and the determination to sweep it, when in point of fact there is no
456
such determination, and the whole view of the Law Officers of the Crown, or at any rate of those who direct the business of this House, is to earn some popularity by throwing Bills upon the table, to be pitilessly hustled and jostled amid the crowd and cram which we know our votes present as soon as the Session is at all advanced, without any rational hope of their being passed. Sir, I do sincerely hope that a serious resolution will be taken upon the subject of these Bills—that either the Government, if it cannot press them to an issue, will say so, or else take up the questions, present them in a form which contains the result of their mature deliberation, and obtain the judgment of the House. I certainly cannot avoid saying that my hon. and learned Friend has shown courage, though unfortunate courage, in referring to a Bill which I hoped had passed to its last repose—I mean a Bill which was introduced into another place for the purpose of amending Church Discipline. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend has acted with his usual judgment in passing a eulogium upon that Bill. At any rate the primâ facie appearance of the facts is not favourable to the measure. Now, how stand the facts? It was introduced and recommended by the authority of the Government. Upon the other hand, it was not made the subject of any party opposition. The opposition to that Bill was conducted in part by the Bishops, who form a very insignificant fraction of the House of Lords, and as to all the rest of that opposition it represented the opinions of Independent Members. The Bill received the organised support of the Government, but, notwithstanding the strength of the support and the weakness of the means of resistance, it was summarily rejected upon the second reading. I think it was a courageous act, therefore, for the Solicitor General, under those circumstances, voluntarily and gratuitously to pass a eulogy upon that Bill. I am afraid he would not accept my congratulations, or otherwise I should offer them to the hon. and learned Gentleman upon his having fortunately escaped, through that early destruction of the Bill, from the task which might have fallen to him of defending it if ever the fates should have decreed it to come down for discussion in this House. I must say, if I can at all estimate the state of opinion as to the views which would be taken in this House with regard to the creation of four Chancellors, each to dispose of a

457
cause and a half, at a moderate annual salary of £3,000, with a train of registrars, clerks, secretaries, and other officials, to aid in the discharge of that onerous business, the hon. and learned Gentleman has reason to thank his stars, because it is ordained that he shall not have an opportunity of proposing such a measure to the British House of Commons. One word upon this measure. The hon. and learned Member for Leominster has told us that there are three Bills already before us, none of which have got to a second reading, and that seems with him the main reason for introducing a fourth. I do not like making predictions, but as the three Bills already introduced have not got to their second readings, in all probability the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) will never get to its second reading. If it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be introduced, I do not feel it my duty to resist the introduction of it. At the same time I am bound to say it is a Bill to the principle of which I hope this House will object entirely to give its concurrence. The hon. and learned Gentleman founds his Bill upon the fact—that temporal causes and matters are adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts, and adjudicated by persons appointed by bishops. Surely, the natural remedy is to take temporal matters out of ecclesiastical courts. In that way you pass from confusion to order. But the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes no such thing. He proposes, by way of mending matters, to thrust temporal judges into ecclesiastical courts, and thereby make confusion worse confounded. I believe the practice of this House is to give leave for the introduction of Bills, and the hon. and learned Member for Leamington delights in their multiplicity, as each supplies him with a separate grievance. I should be very sorry to stand between my hon. and learned Friend and his enjoyment. Therefore, by all means, let the Bill be introduced. But though I have been a long time coming to the point, the main reason for my rising was, that I did not gather from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—although I studied hard all that fell from him—what view Her Majesty's Government take of the principle of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said he should be very sorry to offer any opposition to the introduction
458
of the measure. Now, I want to know whether he assents to the introduction, from that courtesy which is often extended to professional men of allowing them to present their thoughts to the House in the form of a Bill, or whether he thinks the principle really sound and proper, that the cure for the evils of the ecclesiastical courts is to put temporal judges into them. [Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE: They are in them already.] I do not want to raise a technical question with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question we have to consider is, whether we will put in as judges persons appointed by spiritual authorities, or by the Lord Chancellor, the chief political law adviser of the Crown. I hope we are not to infer that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to adopt this left-handed manner of initiating ecclesiastical reforms. If we are able to get a serious issue taken, and a serious judgment upon these Bills, by all means let us proceed; but, if we cannot take that issue, let us be content to wait until we have the opportunity of doing so. At all events, I hope something will be done to prevent this incessant introduction of Bills without any adequate sense of their importance, which, whatever may be our intentions, has the effect of deluding the country, and, with regard to the ecclesiastical courts, raising hopes which are doomed to be disappointed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has deserved the animadversions of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. My hon. and learned Friend did not rise in his place to lecture and admonish the House upon its proceedings, but to defend himself against the accusation brought against himself by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), who desired an explanation why my hon. and learned Friend, having brought in certain Bills, had not made further progress with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield seemed to intimate some doubt of the earnestness of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and of the Government in the cause of legal reform. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has however, put words in the mouth of my hon. and learned Friend which he did not use. Now in the first place my hon. and learned Friend did not say that the House passed a great deal of time in idle talk. But he did say that the House passed much time in unprofitable talk, in which

459
opinion I certainly beg leave to concur. If any one will recollect the number of hours passed in conversation which leads to no result, there is, I think, nothing offensive to the House or unduly severe with regard to its proceedings in the statement of my hon. and learned Friend that a great deal of time is passed unprofitably in the discussions of this House. It is not the fault of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that these measures have not passed, and one observation made by my right hon. Friend accounted entirely for the want of success with regard to the measures that have been produced. My right hon. Friend says that when hon. Members got up and complained of the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and while those Courts are spoken of on all hands as "Augean stables" which ought to be purified, yet, that when measures are brought in, there is such diversity of opinion in the remedy to be applied that no progress is made in the correction of universally admitted evils. Why, Sir, that is precisely the state of the case, and that diversity of opinion is a sufficient reason why the measures to correct these evils have not been carried to a successful result. Now, I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is the earnest wish of Her Majesty's Government that these evils should be corrected. My right hon. Friend says, with great candour, that not only the present Government, but the Government to which he belonged and former Governments laboured under the same difficulty of finding measures of correction which should meet with the concurrence of all parties, and that was the cause why no practical amendment of the law has been carried. But it must also be recollected that the time of this House is occupied with a diversity of subjects, and that it is difficult for the Government, however anxious they may be to put forward a particular class of measures, to find an opportunity of urging on those measures. With regard to the measure of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) I am prepared to concur in voting for the introduction of the Bill, but in so doing I reserve the free discretion of the Government to judge of the provisions of the measure at a future stage. We do not pledge ourselves to anything further. But, with regard to the objection of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) that this Bill tends to reverse the evil, and not to correct it, and that, while you have at present the appointment of Judges with
460
temporal functions, but with ecclesiastical authority, the measure of my hon. and learned friend provides for the appointment of Judges of ecclesiastical functions with temporal authority, it must be borne in mind that the Judges of these Courts at present are not ecclesiastics, but are persons selected from the profession of the law. It is not unfair, therefore, to state as a primâ facie conclusion that the selection of persons to be taken from the legal profession should be vested in those who are conversant with the legal profession, rather than with those who cannot be supposed to be acquainted with the talents of the Members of that profession. There is nothing in that proposition which at the first blush seems unreasonable, and therefore I acquisced in the introduction of the Bill of my hon and learned Friend.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should be very sorry to misrepresent the hon. and learned Solicitor General, but he thought he had used his exact words. He had, perhaps, said too much. He had no doubt his hon. and learned friend had exerted himself with great zeal, but the subject seemed to have been played with for a considerable series of years.
MR. MALINSsaid, he was very glad to hear the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and would have heard them with the more pleasure if he had followed them up by objecting altogether to the introduction of the Bill. Now, his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General had complained most gravely that the several measures which he had introduced for the reform of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction had not met with the attention which they merited at the hands of the House; and that, although he had introduced a Bill in 1854, and another in 1855, and now a totally different one in 1856, he had never got to a second reading with any one of them.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I never introduced such a measure until this Session.
MR. MALINS: His hon. and learned Friend said he had never, until the present Session, introduced such a measure. He, however, spoke of him as a Member of the Government, and he did not care whether it was to the hands of his hon. and learned Friend that the Bills he had alluded to had been actully entrusted. Could he deny, then, that the Government of which he was a member in

461
1854, introduced a measure of reform, in reference to which he (Mr. Malins) gave notice that upon its second reading being brought on, he should move as an Amendment, that the Bill "be read a second time that day six months." That Bill, however, was never put to the test of a second reading. He thought, too, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny that in 1855 a Bill was introduced of a totally different character, and upon that occasion also he (Mr. Malins) gave notice of a similar Amendment, and that Bill likewise never came to a second reading, The plan of 1855 was to engraft everything upon the Court of Chancery. But what did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose this year? Not to engraft the jurisdiction upon the existing Court of Chancery, but to create a minor Court of Chancery for the transaction of the business of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Well, he rose now for the purpose of pointing out the gross inconsistency of his hon. and learned Friend in giving even the semblance of his sanction to the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster. The Government had now before the House a Bill which it was proposed to read a second time to-morrow. That Bill proposed to abolish all the Ecclesiastical Courts of a testamentary nature. In addition to that there were two other measures now before Parliament, altering the law as at present administered by the Ecelesaistical Courts, the main object of all being wholly to abolish those Courts. A Bill had been introduced into the other House upon Church Discipline, and another Bill was to be brought in to-night in the other House, relative to matrimonial causes. If the Government had confidence in their own measures, what did they mean by giving their sanction to the introduction of a Bill which took away from the Archbishops and Bishops the power of appointing Judges and Chancellors in their own courts, and vesting it in the Lord Chancellor? Had his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) no confidence in being able to pass his own Bills? He believed that the difficulties which had always attended this question arose from the fact that, although measures had been introduced by a Member of the Government, they were not Government measures. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had spoken as if the Bill before the House was a Government measure, and he should be glad to hear from him an assurance to that effect.
462
He believed that this important subject had never been properly deliberated upon by the Government, but that it had been left to the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown to deal with, and each had taken different views of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had, with very little candour, endeavoured to trip, him up by impugning the accuracy of his statement that the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought in the Bill of 1854. He admitted that that statement was not quite correct, but the hon. and learned Gentleman might have remembered that that Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor of the Government to which he himself belonged. The fact he believed was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved the Bill of the Lord Chancellor in 1854, while the Lord Chancellor disapproved the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman in 1855, and, for all he knew to the contrary, it was possible that both the Lord Chancellor and the hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved the present measure. No satisfactory adjustment of this important question could be arrived at until it was taken into the deliberate consideration of a Cabinet, and that it had not been thus treated at present was shown by the course, adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman, although he sanctioned the introduction of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster, could not be very confident of its success, for it was most inconsistent to give to any one the power of appointing Judges to Courts which were about to be abolished.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I wish, Sir, to remind the House of the very great difficulty in which we are placed with regard to Bills of this nature. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General to complain of unprofitable talk, for we are told that he did not say idle talk, but there are various subjects introduced into this House which must take up more less time, and, according to the feeling of hon. Gentlemen, one Member will regard the discussion of a subject as interesting while another may consider it to be idle. In the first place we have the Estimates for the year. It is the duty of the Government to bring forward those Estimates, and they naturally take up a great deal of time, and this year the Civil Service Estimates especially occupied many nights

463
discussion. Then, again, it is the natural and constitutional part of the Opposition to consider whether the Government have shown themselves in any way unworthy of confidence, and if they see any ground for so doing it is their constitutional duty to bring forward some Motion inculpating the conduct of the Executive. These undoubted functions of this House must and will be performed, and they naturally take up a great portion of our time, so that at the end of May or the beginning of June we come to the consideration of questions of great importance, of questions involving vast changes, and when we attempt to deal with all the details of those measures we find, in the House of Lords, as we naturally expect to find, some diversity of opinion existing with regard to details, and the result is that we come to the end of the summer and find that the only solution of the difficulty is, either to pass an incomplete measure which will have to be amended, or perhaps repealed at the commencement of the next Session, or else to give up the measure altogether. Now, Sir, I must say that this is a very unsatisfactory state of business. I do not mean to say that the time of the House is uselessly taken up by discussing matters like the present, but I think some alteration might be made in our mode of transacting business. The only serious proposition of that nature which I remember was made by Lord Derby, who, a few years ago, proposed a measure by which a Bill when it had arrived at a certain stage in this House, at the expiration of the Session should be permitted to advance from that stage in the following Session. That plan was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn, and was generally unpopular, I was almost the I am quite sure, however, that there are other plans which we might adopt to avoid the difficulty of taking up important measures at the end of the Session, and endeavouring to settle intricate details between this and the other House of Parliament, at a time, too, when we are deprived of the assistance on legal questions of hon. and learned Gentlemen of the long robe, who are absent on circuit, and when the general attendance of Members is thin. As I have before said, we were at present driven to pass an important measure in an imperfect form, or throw it over altogether. I do not make these observations with a view of deprecating discussion upon the subject now before the House, but because I am convinced
464
that we must come to some other mode of conducting business. I do not see any objection to the introduction of this Bill, but I do not think that it will afford a complete remedy, for when Judges are appointed, the question will arise what functions are they to perform, nor do I think that it will make much progress. I trust that my noble Friend at the head of the Government will seriously consider the difficulties under which we discharge our legislative functions, with the view of preventing the introduction of measures of importance at a time when it is almost useless to attempt to consider them.
MR. WATSONsaid, he concurred with the noble Lord as to the disadvantage of introducing important measures late in the Session when so many of the Members of that House were engaged on circuit. He regretted to hear the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) upon a question of such importance as the Bill now under consideration. They ought to know that the combination of all reformers was required to do away with what was truly described to be the "Augean stable" of the Ecclesiastical Courts. They were not Courts of justice but Courts of injustice. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had, however, the obstructive power of stopping the progress of a good measure, as he had done last Session. Now he (Mr. Watson) believed the Government to be sincere in wishing to reform those Courts. All the lawyers in that House, with the exception perhaps of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, were of opinion that those Courts were the greatest nuisance in the country, and should be abolished. They were a portion of a wretched worn-out system which ought to be swept away. He would cordially support the Bill, and join heart and hand in devising an efficient remedy for the existing evil.
MR. MALINSsaid, he must deny that he had ever been an advocate of the Ecclesiastical Courts. On the contrary, he said let them be abolished by a Government Bill, founded upon the report of the Chancery Commission.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he was sure that but one wish existed on all sides with reference to this subject; and the reason why such delay had arisen in the correction of the evil was, that the Government of

465
the day had, as it seemed to him, most unwisely and unnecessarily thrown over the excellent Report made by the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the matter. In the members of that Commission the profession reposed the greatest confidence, and if their Report had been accepted the improvement of the Ecclesiastical Courts would not have met with opposition from any branch of the profession, and he believed that by the present time a measure on the subject would have passed. Next Session he hoped that a Bill founded on their Report would be brought in, and, if so, he believed it would be carried without any serious opposition.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE, in reply, said that in the absence of any larger and more comprehensive measure, the Bill he wished to introduce would remove the great anomaly now existing by which spiritual persons could appoint temporal Judges. He did not mean to say that this was all he wished to effect, but the removal of such a gross and flagrant anomaly would be a great step in advance. The nepotism of the Bishops was at the root of most of the evils complained of. To that system of nepotism he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was hostile; and he believed the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sophistry of which he was master, was endeavouring to deceive and mislead the House on the subject.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN GEORGE PHILLIMORE, Mr. WATSON, and Colonel FREESTUN.

PUBLIC HEALTH.
MR. COWPER, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Public Health Act, said that seven years' experience had proved that there were certain deficiencies under the existing law which required to be supplied, some Amendments to be made, and some ambiguities to be removed. At present local Boards of Health had no power to remove accumulations of filth and refuse from the back yards of houses, but in the Bill which he asked leave to introduce that omission would be supplied. A most important duty of the local boards was to establish such a system of drainage and sewerage as would remove the sewage to a distance from the towns; but difficulties had been experienced in making arrangements for its final disposition. Great advantages had been derived in some districts from the application
466
of the sewage to grass lands, and it was desirable to allow it to be similarly used whenever practicable, but it had been found that local boards had no power to construct reservoirs for the sewage beyond the limits of their own jurisdiction. He proposed to supply that defect by a clause enabling local boards, under certain restrictions, to secure an outfall for their sewage even beyond their own boundaries. There were other points in the existing Act which required amendment, and which the Bill proposed to rectify, and also doubts which it would clear up. He also proposed to alter the existing law, which prescribed the same machinery to towns possessing municipal corporations as to towns not enjoying that privilege. The Bill contained the practical portion of a Bill which had been introduced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), and which had been referred to a Select Committee. He believed it would meet almost every objection that had been raised to the existing Health of Towns Act, except the main objection of the expense it entailed, and of that he would only observe, that if the good it had done was compared with the money it had cost, the Act, even upon the lowest ground of economy, had been a most beneficial one, by preventing disease, and consequent pressure upon the poor rates.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COWPER and Sir GEORGE GREY.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Juvenile Convict Prison (Ireland).
2a Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading, said that he had not much to add to the statement which he had made two years ago when a very similar Bill was under consideration, to which their Lordships gave a second reading, but which, owing to the advanced period of the Session, was not at that time prosecuted. The evil which the Bill was intended to rectify was one which had long been felt, both by those who looked at the matter theoretically as well as by those who viewed it in a more practical light, to require a remedy. As their Lordships were aware, a divorce, properly so called, such as would reinvest the parties with the privileges of single persons and enable them to marry again, was entirely unknown to the law of England. When, unfortunately, differences occurred between a husband and wife—in a case of infidelity on either side—the aggrieved party might apply to the ecclesiastical courts, and obtain a divorce à mensâ et thoro, which enabled the parties to live separate, and in some respects relieved them from the obligations of marriage. But it did no more; it did not make either of them in the nature of single persons so as to enable them to contract a new marriage. The cases in which divorces à mensâ et thoro were granted were not merely cases of adultery. Gross cruelty was likewise thought sufficient to render further cohabitation impossible. There were also other cases—where, for example, persons, from physical causes were incapable of contracting marriage, or where marriages were contracted within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity—in which the ecclesiastical courts, upon application, granted what is sometimes called, though inaccurately, a divorce à vinculo matrimonii. It was clear that, in such cases the divorce was nothing more than a declaration that no valid marriage had in reality taken place. That being the state of the law upon this subject as it at present stood, it had for more
402
than a century and a half been felt as a great grievance that when a separation had taken place after marriage—for adultery, for instance, or for some other competent cause, the aggrieved party should not be able to marry again; and, to remedy that evil, recourse had been had to what he must say was a clumsy expedient—to give it no worse name—namely, a reference to that House on the part of the injured party, asking their Lordships to grant a private Act of Parliament to supersede the general law of the country and enable the party to contract another marriage. It was a matter rather of antiquarian curiosity than of any practical value to trace the progress of the law on this subject; but it might be expedient to indicate what had been the various changes in the course of legislation in the matter of divorce, in order to lay a foundation for the Bill which he was now asking their Lordships to sanction. In remote times there was no possibility, in any circumstances, of dissolving a marriage which had once been duly contracted, marriage in the Roman Catholic Church being considered a sacrament and indissoluble. But it was a matter of historical notoriety that the Court of Rome, partly in order to enrich its coffers, and partly to please those by whom applications were made to it, was in the habit of enabling divorces really to take place by declaring marriages which had in fact taken place to have been unlawful and void ab initio, by conjuring up a vast variety of conditions precedent, beside those of impotence, or relationship within the forbidden degrees, by which the marriage contract was said to be rendered null ab initio. One of these conditions was the existence of a previous contract. Again, the forbidden degrees with us included the relations of brother and sister, uncle and aunt, and some few others; but the Court of Rome went much further, and held marriages null which had been contracted between eighth or ninth cousins. There was one case mentioned by Lord Coke, in which a marriage was declared null by the Court of Rome, because one of the parties had been godfather to the sister or cousin of the other. Such were the expedients resorted to in order to get rid of the pressure arising from the strictness of the Roman Catholic law which prohibited divorces altogether. The Reformation swept away all that class of laws and expedients, and then came the

403
question as to the footing on which divorce was for the future to be placed. In the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII., and again in the reign of Edward VI., a commission was issued to very learned persons—Archbishop Cranmer being at the head of them—to inquire into all the subjects connected with the new ecclesiastical state, including those of marriage and divorce. The opinion of the Commissioners was embodied in a report written in very elegant Latin, but which never became law, and which was now only valuable as showing the views entertained by those learned persons. Shortly after that period, their Lordships' House interfered in the matter for the first time. He referred to the case of the Marquess of Northampton; which, however, was not regarded as a precedent, because at the end of the reign of Elizabeth, or in the beginning of the reign of James I., it was universally admitted that a divorce, in the sense of a total separation, so as to enable the parties to marry again—a divorce à, vinculo matrimonii—was entirely unknown to the law of England. Towards the close of the seventeenth century two or three Cases occurred in which, for the first time, the House of Lords was called upon to sanction those private laws—privilegia, as they were called,—which put parties in the same position as if they had never been married. The new system had now so far taken root that in the first eighty years after the establishment of that system, according to the last report of the Commissioners, to whom he should presently advert, private Bills granting divorces were obtained at the rate of about one per annum. That, he supposed, was the time when, at the suggestion of Lord Loughborough, the House agreed to standing orders, that no Bill granting a divorce à vinculo matrimonii should be passed, except at the instance of a person who had previously obtained a divorce à mensâ et thoro in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and had brought an action at law and recovered a verdict against the adulterer, or could explain why such action had not been brought. When that course had been taken their Lordships had, almost as a matter of course, upon the party proving his case at the bar, passed a Bill granting him a divorce, unless it should appear that the misconduct of the wife had been caused or fostered by the treatment she had received from the husband. The Bill after passing their Lord-
404
ships went to the House of Commons, where it was treated in every respect like a Private Bill; and thus the aggrieved party obtained by a private Act of Parliament that redress which the general law of the country did not give. Now that was a state of things unsatisfactory both to those who unfortunately were obliged to have recourse to such proceedings and to those who looked at the law and legislation of the country in a scientific point of view; and accordingly in 1850 a Commission was issued under the great seal to a number of very eminent persons, both lawyers and civilians, including his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, the late Lord Beaumont, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Walpole, and Sir William Page Wood, to inquire into the nature of the remedy for a system which had been so universally complained of. The Commissioners made their inquiry and made their Report, and it was on the recommendations made in that Report that the provisions of the Bill now introduced were chiefly founded. What he proposed to effect by the operation of the Bill was this—instead of making it necessary for a husband who complained of the infidelity of his wife to come to their Lordships' bar, to raise an action at law, and to take proceedings in an Ecclesiastical Court, he proposed at once to constitute a court competent to deal with the whole matter. Actions of crim, con. as they were called—always actions of a revolting nature, and very much to be deprecated—would thus be rendered unnecessary. He did not, however, propose to abolish such actions altogether, as persons who had sustained a grievance might wish to have recourse to them; but such actions were not to be necessary as a preliminary to getting relief by divorce. He thought it was also very absurd to require a person to go to another tribunal in order to get half way towards procuring a divorce, and, therefore, the necessity of repairing to an Ecclesiastical Court would be abolished. The great difficulty in establishing the new court lay in constituting an efficient tribunal. On the one hand, there would not be anything like business to occupy the whole time of a court constituted for the purpose of granting divorces; and, on the other hand, in making a selection of Judges, it was requisite to obtain the services of the best legal functionaries. In framing the constitution of the new court, the Bill followed as nearly as pos-

405
sible the recommendations of the Commissioners. The Commissioners recommended that the court should consist of a Vice Chancellor, a puisne common law Judge, and an ecclesiastical Judge. Now, instead of the Vice Chancellor, he proposed the Lord Chancellor. He did not say that the Lord Chancellor was necessarily a better judge than the Vice Chancellor, but he thought that in making a transition from the Legislature itself to a court of justice it was important to give all the dignity they could to the new tribunal that was to be constituted. Then, instead of a puisne Judge, he proposed that the Lord Chief Justice should be one of the judges, and instead of an ecclesiastical judge the Judge of the Court of Probate. Such was the tribunal he proposed to constitute; and the next point was how they were to deal with the matters intrusted to them. He proposed that, in making inquiry whether or not a wife complained of by her husband had or had not committed adultery, they should proceed to obtain evidence, not by depositions, but vivâ voce, and that they should be empowered to send, if they though fit, certain issues to be tried by a jury, as was at present done under the practice of the Court of Chancery. The Commissioners recommended, and he thought wisely, that, inasmuch as these questions of divorce would not only apply to divorce à vinculo matrimonii, but to divorce à mensâ et thoro, the court should be required to deal with all matters relating to disputes between husband and wife, involving questions less serious than a divorce à vinculo matrimonii. This he thought a valuable recommendation, and therefore he had adopted it; but he did not think that in dealing with these questions the presence of the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice would be necessary. He therefore proposed that the judge of the Court of Probate should be entitled to deal alone with these cases, calling his colleagues to his assistance whenever points of gravity and importance should arise for decision. That being the course of proceeding in the court itself, he proposed next that there should be an appeal, not as now, from the Ecclesiastical Court to the Privy Council, but to the bar of the House of Lords, just as in other cases of appeal from inferior courts; but that if no appeal were taken within three calendar months then the decision of the Court should be final. There was one point connected with the subject on which
406
great difference of opinion prevailed—and that was whether a suit for a divorce was one to which a court ought to listen on the application of the wife, or one which could be instituted only at the suggestion of the husband. He was ready to admit that on he first blush it did appear very unjust that relief should be given to the husband complaining, while the same relief was not given to the wife, but he concurred with the recommendation of the Commissioners, that on that point they should adhere to the law as it now was. In theory it was very well to say that a wife ought to have the same relief as the husband, but practically the feelings and habits of mankind would be found to go along with the views of the Commissioners. There had been published an able pamphlet on this subject, in which it was suggested that an expression had dropped from him (the Lord Chancellor) to the effect that a husband would only have to be a "little profligate" in order to get quit of his wife. By such an expression—if indeed he ever used it—he was understood to speak lightly of misconduct on the part of a husband in such cases. He could only say that he must have expressed himself very unfortunately on the subject, for certainly he never intended to put such a construction on the misconduct of a husband. It was the common feeling of mankind that, if a husband repented and treated his wife with kindness, the sin on the part of the husband was not necessarily an unpardonable offence. There were cases in which a wife might and ought to condone, but the common feeling of mankind told them that this must be on the part of the wife only. There was, he thought, much wisdom in the language used upon this subject when it was said that when parties felt that they must continue husband and wife, that feeling induced them to become good husbands and good wives. He did not propose, therefore, to enable this court to grant divorce at the instance of the wife merely on the ground of the husband's infidelity. Of course cases might arise in which it would be right that relief should be given to a wife; but for that purpose he put her in no worse position than she was in now. There had only been four instances within the last century and a half in which their Lordships had granted this relief at the instance of the wife. In two of these cases it was impossible, both legally and morally, that the wife could condone; they

407
were cases in which adultery was committed with the sister of the wife, and it was impossible by the ecclesiastical law to allow cohabitation after such an offence. Another of these cases was that of Miss Turner; but it was hardly a case of divorce, being rather a special Act of Parliament declaring the nullity of the marriage. The only case in which he thought relief might properly be given to the wife was where the adultery of the husband was incestuous, and where, therefore, condonation by the wife, and subsequent cohabitation, would be impossible. He thought in the case of incest it was extremely reasonable that the wife should have that relief which was granted to the husband in ordinary cases. He had now given their Lordships an outline of the object and the details of this measure. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had given notice of his intention to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, which should also inquire generally into the subject of the law of divorce. He (the Lord Chancellor) would be most reluctant to oppose any wish entertained by his noble and learned Friend with regard to a measure which it must be their common object to render as perfect as possible; but he must remind the noble and learned Lord that a few years ago the subject of divorce was referred to a Commission, which examined witnesses, inquired into the matter thoroughly, and presented a very elaborate report. He (the Lord Chancellor) could not see, therefore, that any advantage would result from referring the subject to a Select Committee. It appeared to him that the only questions to be considered were questions of principle, such as whether the wife should be allowed to have the same relief in all cases as the husband, or whether any further relief should be granted by private Acts of Parliament. He could only say that if there were any defects in the Bill he would be most anxious to amend them. He had been asked the other day by a noble Earl near him to what extent Ireland would be affected by this Bill. At present all cases of divorce à vinculo matrimonii, whether arising from adultery committed in Ireland or elsewhere, were disposed of at their Lordships' bar. He had certainly thought, in the first instance, that it was desirable that cases of this kind should be dealt with by one tribunal; but, as he understood a strong feeling existed in the sister country in favour of the establishment
408
there of a similar court to that which he proposed to constitute in England, to determine upon cases of adultery committed in Ireland, he was ready, if it should be their Lordships' wish, to assent to the establishment of such a tribunal. Such a measure would certainly be attended with one advantage, by diminishing the expenses now entailed upon parties to a suit for divorce when the adultery occurred in Ireland. He was therefore willing to introduce a clause into this Bill for establishing in Ireland such a court as he wished to establish in England, or if it were thought more desirable, he would introduce a separate Bill applicable to Ireland. He thought the cumbrous, inconvenient, and, he must say, discreditable system which had been pursued for a century and a half of sanctioning divorces by private Acts of Parliament, ought to be abandoned, and he hoped therefore their Lordships would consent to give a second reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I have deemed it my duty to consider with much attention the Bill of my noble and learned Friend; and, notwithstanding the respect I entertain for him, I must say that I think the measure is most insufficient, and ought not in its present shape to pass into a law. Its operation would be most unjust as between husband and wife, and, so far from rendering the situation of a woman better, it would in some most material respects render her situation much worse than it is at the present moment. I think, considering the interesting nature of the subject, and the extent to which it affects the welfare of society, that, notwithstanding the inquiries which have already taken place, the whole matter ought to be referred to a Select Committee. I entertain that opinion the more strongly, in consequence of the statement which I understand was made by a Minister of the Crown, a gentleman of great learning and commanding talents. Some time after, a former Bill relating to this question was withdrawn, its defects became the subject of discussion in a place which is publicly and pretty well known; and the learned individual to whom I refer, expressed a sincere and earnest hope, that when another Bill of a similar description was brought in, due care and attention would be paid to it, and that an endeavour would be made to put an end to the system of harship and cruelty as regards the

409
woman which had hitherto existed. With that concurrence of opinion, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this Bill, and the whole question of the law and practice of divorce, important as it is, ought to be referred to a Select Committee. There are many questions of great importance connected with this Bill, and with the relations between husband and wife. The matters with regard to which the female sex have a right to complain may, I think, be ranged under four heads—first, with respect to property; next, with regard to personal protection; thirdly, with regard to actions for criminal conversation; fourthly, as to divorce. I beg that your Lordships will not be alarmed at this enumeration. It will not require many observations to explain these different points. First, then, with respect to property. I do not refer to the questions of property as between man and wife when they are living together in harmonious connection, but to the relation of property when they are separated from each other, in consequence of the misconduct of the husband, by sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court. What is at present the law upon this subject? Why, if a woman is separated from her husband by a sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, and a legacy is left to her, or if she succeeds to personal property in consequence of intestacy or in any other way, such property belongs to her husband. He can receive it, and generally does so, and he may appropriate it altogether independently of his wife. This matter is closely connected with the law of divorce, but it is not touched by the present Bill. Ought it not to be inquired into and set right? Again, if the wife succeeds to real property by devise or by inheritance, to whom does that property belong? The husband occupies it during the lifetime of his wife, and may take the income from it notwithstanding a separation in consequence of his misconduct. But, much worse than this, if the wife tries to eke out a scanty subsistence for herself and her children by the exercise of any art in which she is proficient, or by instruction, the husband can seize upon the proceeds of her industry and bestow them upon his mistress. I ask your Lordships whether, in legislating upon the law of divorce, you ought not to adopt some provisions with reference to this subject. These are the claims which the husband has upon the property of his wife. Let us look at the other side, and mark the position in which
410
every wife is placed. With the exception of a scanty allowance in the shape of alimony, whatever personal property belongs to the husband he may appropriate as he thinks proper; he may assign it, or bequeath it by will, and leave his wife and children destitute. There is no reciprocity or inequality in such a case. It is said, however, and with some justice, that settlements executed previously to marriage may restrain the husband in the exercise of these rights; but the system of settlement does not extend to the great mass of the people. Nine tenths of the marriages in this country take place without any settlements, and are governed, as to rights of property, by the common law. I now come to another view of the question. A wife is separated from her husband by a decree of the Ecclesiastical Court, the reason for that decree being the husband's misconduct—his cruelty, it may be, or his adultery. From that moment the wife is almost in a state of outlawry. She may not enter into a contract, or, if she do, she has no means of enforcing it. The law, so far from protecting, oppresses her. She is homeless, helpless, hopeless, and almost wholly destitute of civil rights. She is liable to all manner of injustice, whether by plot or by violence. She may be wronged in all possible ways, and her character may be mercilessly defamed; yet she has no redress. She is at the mercy of her enemies. Is that fair? Is that honest? Can it be vindicated upon any principle of justice, of mercy, or of common humanity? Another branch of this question that demands particular attention, is the prosecution for alleged criminal conversation. The husband brings an action against a supposed paramour, to recover damages as a solatium for what is described as his "loss of honour." Is the practice that at present governs such proceedings to continue? Mark the injustice of it. As far as the plaintiff and defendant are concerned, it is a matter of mere money with them, and therefore an affair of comparatively trivial importance. But is it so with the wife? Oh, far otherwise. With her it is a matter of life and death. If the plaintiff's action succeeds, all is lost with her. She is driven from society, she has no refuge, no one will receive her. In actions of that description she is not so much as heard. She dares not lift her voice. She is not permitted to appear in the case, or to give evidence. She has everything at stake,

411
yet the law treats her as if she had nothing. This is a subject which deserves attention, and assuredly some more equitable system ought to be substituted for so disgraceful a course of proceeding. It has been sometimes thought that a criminal proceeding might be substituted, and we all know that a Bill with that object was introduced into your Lordships' House some forty years ago, and received the zealous support of some of the best and most illustrious members of your order. It was brought into the Commons by the Master of the Rolls, and was supported by Pitt, Windham, Wilberforce, and some of the most learned and eminent men in that branch of the Legislature; but unhappily the Bill was thrown out. The cause of its defeat I have never been able to ascertain. Most assuredly it was not that the current of argument or the weight of character as regards its friends and opponents was against it. I now come to the question of divorce. The law in that respect is usually administered by the ecclesiastical courts. It is of two kinds—the divorce à vinculo matrimonii and that à mensâ et thoro. And here observe how different is the principle on which these two descriptions of divorce are administered. The divorce à mensâ et thoro is granted for cruelty and for adultery; but adultery is a sufficient cause, whether committed by the wife or the husband. Here the parties are on an equal footing, and there is no difference between them. But in the case of the divorce à vinculo, the ecclesiastical courts proceed upon a different principle. Those tribunals do not annul marriages except for causes which were in existence previously to the solemnisation of such marriages; as, for instance, consanguinity, or an incapacity to perform the duties and fulfil the objects of marriage. It is only under such circumstances that the ecclesiastical courts pronounce a judgment of divorce à vinculo matrimonii. They take no cognisance of what has occurred since marriage, nor have they any power to divorce for adultery. Since the Reformation marriages have not been dissoluble on the ground of adultery by any proceedings except by the action of the Legislature, and now cannot be dissolved by any other machinery than that of an Act of Parliament. It is needless to enumerate all the arguments that may be advanced against such a mode of proceeding. It is attended by manifold inconveniences, and it is open to the charge
412
of flagrant injustice. One fatal objection to it is its enormous expense, which limits its application to one class of society. To that class alone does it bring relief. In ordinary cases a Bill of divorce costs from £700 to £800; and instances are of no unfrequent occurrence where the expense amounts to several thousands, and where the proceedings are protracted for a long series of years. Several attempts to effect a change in the law have been made, but without effect. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack proposes a new tribunal; but, before we consent to its establishment, it is essential to understand on what principles it is to be governed, and on what system it is to accomplish the object it has in view. In the first place, the new tribunal ought not to be open to the upper classes only. It should be accessible to persons of moderate incomes, and it should be so constituted and administered as to do equal justice to the parties who appeal to its jurisdiction. Will the system proposed by the noble and learned Lord fulfil these conditions? I scarcely think it. In the first place, there will be an investigation before a tribunal composed of three learned Judges, who will examine and inquire; but after that there will be for either party a right to appeal to your Lordships' House. Thus, under the new state of things, as under the old, the question will eventually come before your Lordships. It will be competent for you to confirm or reject the decision already pronounced, or you may direct the court below to examine additional witnesses or to re-examine the former witnesses on other circumstances; or you may order certain issues to be tried by the Judges on their respective circuits. And all this complicated machinery is contrived and put in motion with the view of cheapening the cost of divorce, and making the tribunal accessible not only to the rich, but to persons of moderate means. I am much mistaken if, so far from having any such effect, it will not occasion in many cases more expense than is incurred under the law as it at present stands. And then as to the equality of justice—what is the principle of this Bill? It is, that a married woman shall have no remedy against her husband for adultery, unless in cases of incest. However atrocious the conduct of the husband may be—though it may be so infamous that it may be a horror to the wife to be connected with such a man, yet the only ground on which the wife is to have a claim to a

413
divorce is in the case of incest on the part of the husband. But that offence is so exceedingly rare, that the position of the wife will be practically no better than it is at present. It is said, indeed, that as regards adultery there is an ingredient in the case of the wife which does not exist in that of the husband, inasmuch as the wife's adultery may introduce spurious offspring into a family. Allowing this to be true, will it be denied that there may be circumstances in the conduct of the husband such as may render it not only advisable, but necessary, that the right of divorce should be granted to the wife? What will be said of the case of the husband who not only treats a virtuous and innocent wife with cruelty, but lives in open adultery and takes his mistress home with him? Under such circumstances, ought not the wife to be relieved from the marriage obligation? My noble and learned Friend's doctrine is, that the situation of the husband in this case is not very much changed. He simply lives with a mistress instead of a wife; he suffers little in the opinion of the world, nor is his station in society affected; he is merely considered "a little profligate." That is the picture which my noble and learned Friend draws of the wrong-doer—of the man who has driven his wife from her home by his infamous conduct; but what is the situation of the suffering woman? To live in a blank state of desolation—all her prospects blasted—driven from her home, perhaps separated from her children, with no object on which to fix her affections, exposed to the designs of profligate men, and scarcely able by any care or caution to avoid calumny and slander—living on the brink of destruction. Such is the gloomy fate which awaits the injured wife. Is it to be borne that there shall be no relief for her except in the solitary case of incest? Imagine the case of a woman (and we have had examples of this) whose husband has attempted her life by poison that he may more freely give way to some unlawful passion—is she to have no relief? This Bill actually places a woman in a worse position than she is at present. Now she may apply to this House for a divorce, she may state her case, and narrate all the injuries to which she has been subjected, and your Lordships have a discretion to decide in her favour. My noble and learned Friend's authority is very high, but
414
let us hear what Lord Thurlow says on this subject:—
"The House passed Bills of divorce in a variety of circumstances. In all such cases their Lordships governed their judgment by the circumstances of each particular case. Indeed he knew not how they could do otherwise. Because with respect to divorce he knew no rule to direct their conduct or to limit the wisdom and discretion of the House. What was the objection to granting the petitioner, a much injured wife, the divorce which she prayed for?"
Then he stated the case of the wife of Lord Audley. Would their Lordships have refused the prayer of the petitioner in such a case? I know, it may be said, that the case to which Lord Thurlow was referring was a case of incest; but he does not confine himself to incest, for he extends his remarks expressly to Lady Audley's case, which, horrible as it was, was not a case of incest. My noble and learned Friend's Bill, however, would refuse a divorce in that case, infamous, base, and scandalous as it was. The moment we pass this Bill, and say that divorce shall only be granted in particular cases, you cannot go out of those cases. Your Lordships will have no discretion—a divorce can only be granted under the circumstances laid down in this Bill. It is true there is an appeal to your Lordships; but in dealing with these appeals your Lordships will be bound by the law of the court below. There is a clause in the Report to which my noble and learned Friend has referred of a most extraordinary character. It is to the effect that there is nothing to prevent a woman from applying to your Lordships for a particular Act of Parliament to dissolve her marriage, even if you pass a law to enable the husband to prosecute divorce upon other terms—that is, you are, according to the recommendation of the Commissioners, to alter the law in a manner which shall enable the husband to prosecute a divorce on easy terms, and to leave the law just as it is, with all its hardships, on the wife separated from her husband, with probably no means, and therefore no possibility of redress. It is said, that the breach of morality is not so great in the husband as it is in the wife—that is, that infidelity in the one does not introduce so much immorality into society as it does in the case of the other, and the Commissioners quote the authority of the great moralist, Dr. Johnson, for this. Unfortunately the Commissioners do not quote the whole of the passage in, which,

415
the dictum to which they refer is contained. I will supply the omission in order that your Lordships may judge how far you are justified in taking the great moralist as your master and guide upon subjects of this description. This is the whole passage—
"Between a man and his wife a husband's infidelity is nothing. Wise married women do not trouble themselves about the infidelity of their husbands. The difference between the two cases is boundless. The man imposes no bastards on his wife. A man, to be sure, is criminal in the sight of God, but he does not do his wife any very material injury if he does not insult her; if, for instance, he steals privately to her chambermaid: Sir, a wife ought not greatly to resent this."
I will read to your Lordships the observations made on this passage by another moralist of late days—
"The manner in which the earlier years of his life had been passed had given to his demeanour, and even to his moral character, some peculiarities appalling to the civilised beings who were the companions of his old age."
That is the commentary of Macaulay on Dr. Johnson's matrimonial doctrine. It is said that if equal facilities of divorce were given to women the courts would very soon he choked up with their applications. But I know woman's character better than that. I know that in none but in extreme cases would she resort to this remedy. I could enlarge upon this topic, but my ideas are so well expressed in the language of an eloquent writer that I will quote it to your Lordships—
"A man who has lapsed in his observance of the marriage vow may nevertheless be a kindly husband and father, with whom reconcilement would be a safe and blessed generosity. If we add to these admissions woman's natural lingering love for her companion; love undeniable, indisputable; love evidenced each day, even among the poor creatures who come bruised and bleeding before the police courts, refusing to give evidence, in a calmer hour, against the man such evidence would condemn to punishment; if we add the love of children, the dread of breaking the bond which shall perhaps help a stepmother into the mother's vacated place; if we add the obvious interest, in almost every instance, which the woman has to remain in her home, and the horror most women must feel at the idea of the public exposure and discussion of such wrongs;—it is evident they would not be so very eager to avail themselves, in usual cases, of the extreme remedy. But in unusual cases—in cases of the dreary, stormy, deserted life—where profligacy, personal violence, insult, and oppression, fill up the measure of that wrong which pardon cannot reach—why is there to be no rescue for the woman?"
I am quite satisfied that the more your Lordships look into the matter the more
416
you will be satisfied that a married woman would not, except in extreme cases, avail herself of this remedy. But, in principle, there ought to be no distinction made between the adultery of the husband and that of the wife. But it is said that all the ecclesiastical authorities are against the opinion I profess. So far from that being the case, the Commissioners mentioned in their Report the celebrated judgment of Bishop Cozens in the case of the Duke of Norfolk, and I will read a short passage from it on this subject:—
"The bond of marriage is a conjugal promise made between a man and his wife, that each of them will live together, according to God's holy ordinance, notwithstanding poverty or infirmity, or such other things as may happen during their lives. But the promise does not extend to tolerating adultery, which, according to God's ordinance dissolves the marriage. By adultery the very essence of the contract is directly violated; but the contract ceasing, the bond or obligation depending upon it (that is, the nuptial tie) ceases also. It is against all reason that all matrimonial duties should be for ever taken away, yet the bond or obligation to those duties should continue."
If your Lordships read the whole of the judgment to which I have referred they will find it supports with great weight this doctrine. But I have authority much higher than any individual ecclesiastic; I allude to the work De Reformatione Rerum Ecclesiasticarum, on which so much praise is bestowed, and so much reliance placed in the Report of the Commissioners. Your Lordships are aware of the history of that work. In the reign of Edward VI, a Commission was appointed, composed of thirty-two persons; sixteen being ecclesiastics of high rank, and sixteen laymen, also of high stations, Members of this and the other House of Parliament. The object of the Commission was the reformation of the whole ecclesiastical law. That Commission drew up articles, which were framed by Cranmer, and relating, among other matters, to marriage. And what is it that that Commission said on the subject? It said that adultery is a ground of divorce, whether committed by man or woman. If, then, authority is wanted in respect to this matter, here you have the authority of the early Reformers, whose attention was directed to the point:—the authority, not of ecclesiastics alone, but also of laymen of high station. This conclusion is consistent with our ecclesiastic law, because by it the

417
adultery of the husband is put on the same footing as the adultery of the wife; and though the Ecclesiastical Courts have the power to divorce only à mensâ et thoro, still the same principle applies in cases of divorce à vinculo matrimonii. What greatly strikes the minds of people is, that all law should he equal. If you go north there is perfect equality between man and woman with respect to the law of divorce; in the same way as it is laid down in our ecclesiastical law. There adultery on the part of the wife or husband dissolves marriage à vinculo. How monstrous is it, then, that the law on a subject of so much importance; coming home, as it were, to every one's fireside, should be so different in different parts of the United Kingdom. Ought not your Lordships to inquire and endeavour to ascertain whether there is any foundation for this distinction? A Committee of this House sat some time ago respecting the state of the law of marriage, and Scotch witnesses were examined; I know that many noble Lords in this House, who can, from their own knowledge, answer at once this question—Is there more licentiousness in Scotland than in England in reference to the intercourse of the sexes? I believe quite the reverse; and yet such licentiousness was apprehended formerly if you gave women the right of applying for divorce against husbands. The then Lord Advocate M'Neili, now Lord Justice General, was examined, and gave the following evidence:—
"Is there a double proceeding with you as with us—that is to say, a sentence of separation from bed and board, as well as a sentence which dissolves the marriage?—Yes.
"Are both proceedings competent to the wife as well as to the husband?—Yes.
"Is there any difference whatever between the right of the husband and the right of the wife to prosecute those kind of proceedings?—Each has the right in law.
"Has any inconvenience been found to result from giving the wife an equal remedy with the husband in obtaining a divorce à vinculo?—I am not aware of any inconvenience.
And Mr. Maconochie expressed a similar opinion, thus, namely—
"Do you think that any practical inconveniences arise from giving the wife a remedy against the husband of the same kind as he has against the wife?—I think not.
"Do you consider that there are about as many cases of wives divorcing their husbands as of husbands divorcing their wives, or fewer?—I think very considerably fewer.
"Is it your opinion that marriage ought to be dissolved on account of the adultery of the hus-
418
band in every case?—I should certainly say so, generally speaking, from my own experience in Scotland. The same remedy that is given to the husband, I think, ought to be afforded to the wife.
Is that the general opinion of Scotch lawyers?—I should say so, decidedly.
Such is the evidence of the witnesses on the effects of the law of Scotland, showing that no inconveniences resulted from it. I think I have heard it stated that Lord Eldon entertained an opinion on this point in accordance with the provisions of the present Bill. Such may have been his opinion at an early period of his life; but as the full result of his experience he came to a different conclusion, for in Mrs. Moffatt's case, where the application for divorce was made by Mrs. Moffatt on the ground of cruelty and adultery, he made this declaration:—
"The novelty of the present application arises from its being an application on the part of the wife against the husband, but I have yet to learn that a woman has not as good a right to relief as a man, under the circumstances that give rise to Bills of this description; and, as I see no reason why a woman is not as much entitled as a man to sue for a divorce, I shall move that the Bill be read a second time."
The noble and learned Lord who was then upon the woolsack, and who now sits below me (Lord Brougham), felt himself bound in that case by the practice of the House; but he has since altered his opinion on the subject, and I have a passage here, stating, in strong and eloquent terms, what was the opinion of my noble and learned Friend some time after that case occurred. I am spared the necessity of troubling your Lordships with that extract, because my noble and learned Friend is now present, and he can state to your Lordships what his opinions are. I trust that I have now satisfied the House that, so far from the weight of authority being in favour of this Bill, it is the other way, and I leave it to your Lordships to say whether I have not proved such a case as to induce you—to compel you almost—in justice to grant this Committee, I therefore conclude by moving an Amendment in the terms of my notice.
Amendment moved, to leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("the Bill and the Law and Practice of Divorce be referred to a Select Committee, with Directions to Enquire whether any and what Alterations it will be proper and just to make in the said Bill; and to report thereon to the House.")
LORD BROUGHAMseconded the Amendment. Anything more convincing, more luminous, or (which is saying everything) more worthy of his noble and learned Friend than the statement which he had just addressed to their Lordships he had not only never heard, but could not even imagine. That the Bill followed substantially the tenour of the Report of a most respectable body of Commissioners he did not deny; but as he differed from the Report of the Commissioners he differed from the Bill, being decidedly of opinion that the question ought to be dealt with in a larger sense and on a wider basis. He thought that as to the question of divorce there were only two courses which it would be consistent, or even rational or intelligent for them to adopt; one was considerably to enlarge the remedy proposed by the Bill, and the other was to put an end to all divorces, even by legislation. The practice of refusing, almost as a matter of course, a remedy to one party and granting it to the other, almost as a matter of course, appeared to be so utterly repugnant to every principle of common sense, of justice, and common humanity, that he did not see the possibility of maintaining it, and his noble and learned Friend was fully justified in taking the stand he had upon the present occasion. His noble and learned Friend bad justly remarked that the establishment of the proposed court would rather make matters worse for the wife than they now were, because the court would have no discretionary power. The Bill provided that a wife should have no remedy against her husband except in cases of incestuous adultery; but he begged to remind the House that cases of polygamy sometimes occurred. Two such cases had come before him. In one, the husband had been tried at the Old Bailey, convicted, and sentenced to transportation for having intermarried with another woman, his wife being alive. That was held to be a ground for divorce, and the prayer of the wife was granted. In the other case, there had been no conviction, but the parties separated at the church door; there was no consummation of the marriage, and the husband, being disappointed as to fortune he had expected with his wife, took himself off and married another woman at Brussels. Those circumstances, according to the rule of their Lordships' House, would be no ground for granting a divorce; but having been proved in evidence their Lordships
420
violated their rule of refusing all remedy to the wife, and granted the prayer of the petition. He remembered another case of the grossest cruelty to the wife, and the most grievous misconduct and profligacy of the most loathsome description on the part of the husband. Great resistance was made to the claim for a divorce, and it was very nearly being refused at once, on the ground of the general rule; but it seemed so monstrous that all remedy should be refused in such a case that it was agreed, if the facts turned out to be as they had been opened by counsel, and if no case of recrimination were proved, that the rule should be extended and a divorce be granted. Unhappily, although the abominable conduct of the husband was made out beyond all question, yet great doubt remained with regard to the conduct of the wife, which had been set up by the husband as a defence against the divorce; and the result was that the divorce was not granted. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had cited a case which occurred when he (Lord Brougham) was on the woolsack. He (Lord Brougham) felt. in common with the late Lord Wynford, the great hardship of that case, and he had never denied that it was most grievous that there should exist such a rule to confine and control their practice; but at the same time he felt that he was bound to abide by that practice, and that except in extreme cases the suit of the wife for divorce ought not to be permitted. That was not so bad a case as many others which had been referred to, but it showed the hardship of the hitherto inflexible rule. No doubt the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack might say that there had already been an inquiry into the subject, not only by a Commission, but formerly by a Committee; but he (Lord Brougham) begged their Lordships to observe how clearly that raised an additional argument in favour of the Amendment. He found that the then Lord Advocate—now Lord President of the Court of Session—when examined before the Committee, stated that in Scotland, where the same facilities for obtaining a divorce were afforded to the wife as to the husband, there were many more divorces applied for by the husband than by the wife. The Lord Advocate was mistaken in that particular, for the returns to which he referred in his evidence, and which related to the whole of Scotland, showed that for the four years ending in 1840, the average number of divorces granted à vinculo was

421
twenty and a fraction in the year, while in 1841 the number was only ten. That was very material, for it proved how very groundless the apprehension was that, if the Scotch law were introduced into England, and if both parties, as according to every principle of justice and common humanity they ought to be, were placed upon the same footing, there would be an endless number of divorces, because the expense would be much less than in coming by Bill to Parliament, and because the wife as well as the husband would have a chance of redress. It was an error of the Lord Advocate to state that there was in Scotland a much greater proportion of divorces applied for by the husband than by the wife; for the names of the cases in the returns showed that the proportion was about nine of the wife and ten of the husband, being very nearly equal. That a further inquiry was loudly called for could not be questioned, both on account of the discrepancy between the statement of fact, and on account of the lapse of time since those returns. Another defect in the Bill before their Lordships, and also in the recommendations of the Commissioners, was, that the remedy was confined to the husband, and refused to the wife, except in the case of incest, leaving out entirely the great head of desertion, which in many instances was even worse than cruelty. The law of Scotland gave the same remedy to the wife for the desertion of her husband as the husband would have for what was not so likely to happen—desertion of the wife. He would not trouble their Lordships with many cases; but in his capacity of President of the Law Amendment Society, which recently summoned a general meeting to consider the wrongs of married women, he was overwhelmed with evidence of the grievances practically sustained by that class under the law as it at present stood. He would mention only one to their Lordships on the subject of desertion. An unhappy lady, who had been married several years, was deserted by her husband, who chose to go in other company to a distant colony, where he had resided for the last six years. By the English law she could not show her face, either in the Court of Doctors' Commons, which indeed could give her only a separation à mensâ et thoro, or in the Court about to be established under the present Bill for a larger remedy. She might, indeed, as the Lord Chancellor had stated, apply in the circumstances of
422
the case to their Lordships' House; but she would have to pay £500 or £600 for the expense of proceeding with a Bill, while every rule which guided their proceedings would prevent her having the shadow of a shade of a chance of getting the Bill passed into a law. The husband had gone to a country where gold was thought to be easily collected. If he succeeded in his speculation and came back with a fortune, not one halfpenny would go to the wife; but if he failed, and, becoming tired of the society in which he was at present living, returned and found that his wife had honestly and nobly exerted herself for her own support by the exercise of her industry and talents, he had the right, as the law now stood—disgracefully to our jurisprudence—to sweep away all the earnings of the unhappy woman whom he had so basely deserted. It would not only be superfluous but impertinent, after the statement of his noble and learned Friend, to dwell longer upon those gross cases of the injustice, cruelty, and inhumanity practised upon married women under the present law; but he must say that unless something be done to change it—unless some redress be afforded—we must be content to continue held up to the rest of mankind as pretending to be a civilized country, while in reality living under a system more barbarous and more inconsistent with itself than existed in any other part of the world. There were other grievances; thus it was impossible not to condemn the system by which a woman's reputation might in her absence be for ever sacrificed in a court of law. He could cite a case in which in an action for crim. con. the defendant's family compounded with the plaintiff by paying him £50, and a verdict was taken in the absence of the wife, by which she was Condemned unheard. Further proceedings, however, took place in the Ecclesiastical Court, where it was shown, not only that the adultery had not happened, but that it was impossible it could have happened, as there never had been consummation either by the husband or any other man. In the meanwhile the poor woman had lain under the imputation for eighteen months. This might be an extreme case, but it was not an extreme case to suppose that the peace and reputation of women might be destroyed in those actions where they were neither heard nor represented. One case he wished to point out, which, though applicable

423
to the law of marriage, and not to that of divorce, was nevertheless worthy of their Lordships' consideration and showed how much the law required amendment. Suppose an English duke of the age of fourteen went to Scotland and fell into the hands of a prostitute, aged perhaps twenty-four, who wheedled him into love-making and then into a marriage according to the Scotch law, simply by acknowledging before witnesses that she was his wife—all the estates and honours of that unhappy young duke would be affected by that marriage, without the possibility of a remedy. But that was not of course touched by the present Bill, which was confined to divorce. He believed that it would leave the case of the wife worse than it was under the present law, because the new Court could not exercise discretion as their Lordships' House now did; and therefore he agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that before the Bill made further progress it should, with the whole question, be sent to a Select Committee.
LORD REDESDALEobserved, that it had been truly stated by the Lord Chancellor, that, at present, the divorce à vinculo was not known to the law of England, and could only be obtained by a special Act of Parliament; it was, therefore, confined practically to the higher class in society. It should be remembered, that ever since the first introduction of Christianity into England the remedy of a divorce à vinculo had been unrecognised by our law. The change which it was now proposed to make was, therefore, a very momentous one. Although the privilege of obtaining such a divorce by a special Act of Parliament was necessarily confined to the rich, and therefore only the very few could avail themselves of it, the people in general had never made any demand to have the same privilege extended to them, and he could not, therefore, conceive that there was any need for this Bill. It had been thought, by some of the highest authorities, that the happiness of the married state was secured by its indissolubility; and that if facilities of dissolving it were given, that happiness would be impaired; and, that, if the principle of divorce à vinculo were introduced as a thing to be granted by the ordinary law, the sanctity of marriage would be less regarded, as it had happened in some continental countries. In that opinion he agreed. The alteration in the habits and morals of the people at first might not
424
be felt, but it would insensibly extend to the most serious consequences. This question had engaged much interest in Parliament, because its Members knew that the privilege of divorce was practically granted to the class to which they belonged; and they felt that it ought to be equally open to all. But if they looked at the manner in which the divorce à vinculo was granted, they would see that it was nothing but a job in favour of the higher classes. The first time a great Peer had attempted to get such a special Act in his own favour it was opposed, and only passed by a narrow majority, and then, Parliament having once admitted the precedent, other cases followed. But there had never, to the present time, been any popular demand for a general law on the subject; and it was only in order to support the consistency of that and the other House of Parliament, and because Parliament had actually been accustomed to perpetrate these jobbing special Acts in the cases of particular individuals, that it was now proposed to make so momentous a change, and to introduce into the law of this country a principle hitherto quite unknown to it. Such a matter was not to be so hastily dealt with. The utmost that could be gathered from the Bible was a separation for adultery, and it did not sanction a divorce à vinculo. He thought, however, the remedy of the divorce à mensa et thoro ought to be more easily obtained than it now was, not only for adultery, but for different other injuries. It was a very expensive proceeding at present, and out of the reach of the larger part of the community. The same tribunal, however, should not be competent to grant the divorce à vinculo matrimonii; therefore this question was quite distinct from that. There ought to be facilities provided of obtaining a separation, with protection, and of obtaining a remedy for some of those wrongs to which married women were subject; but the larger question of the divorce à vinculo was one which needed further inquiry.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, the only objection he felt to referring the Bill to a Select Committee was, that such a course might involve the danger of continuing that unreasonable and unjust system which had so long existed, for the delay attending an inquiry by a Committee might prevent a remedy from being applied within any reasonable time. He rose, however, mainly for the purpose of saying that, as he had on many occasions

425
stood forward as an humble advocate of the law of Scotland, it had been most satisfactory to him to find that so much justice had been done by noble and learned Lords opposite to the law of divorce as practised in Scotland. He believed that the Scotch law, in that respect, was founded upon wisdom and justice, and he thought it might induce his noble and learned Friends to look with a little more complacency upon the law of marriage in Scotland. His noble and learned Friend opposite had imagined an absurd case, and supposed that a young Duke might be entrapped into a marriage by an artful and designing woman. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) did not deny that such a case was possible; but, he would ask, how many young Dukes had entrapped innocent young women in comparison with the number of young Dukes entrapped by the artful persons to whom the noble and learned Lord referred? He thought nothing more just could be conceived than that a promise of marriage, followed by cohabitation, ought to constitute a valid marriage, and that was the case in Scotland. He believed, generally speaking, that women were infinitely more virtuous than men. He believed, that for one woman who had entrapped a thoughtless young man into marriage hundreds of innocent women bad been entrapped by artful and designing men. He, therefore, thought that the possibility of such an absurd case as his noble and learned Friend had suggested was no argument at all against the justice of the marriage law of Scotland.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he should not object to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee; indeed he could not resist it. But he would not admit that it was his duty, in introducing a measure for the amendment of the law of divorce, to undertake a perfect amendment of the code of laws concerning the relations of husbands and wives. Undoubtedly there might be cases which required amendment, and if his noble and learned Friends would introduce or suggest such improvements they should have his respectful attention; but it was a subject so interwoven with every part of our law, that any attempt to alter it would be beset with difficulties. What he proposed was to meet an admitted grievance by this Bill; and all the arguments used which did not relate to divorce were beyond the object to which his attention was at present directed. There was
426
one argument now used which did relate to that object. It had been said that the wife ought to have the same right as the husband, and that under this Bill she would have no remedy. That was a mistake; she would have the same remedy which she now possessed. She would not have the extended remedy which this Bill proposed to give to the husband, but she would have the right of applying for a divorce aà mensa et thoro, just as she had now; and the husband would have the right of coming to the new court, instead of coming to their Lordships' bar.
LORD LYNDHURST: But how unjust that is!
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not quite understand what it was that his noble and learned Friend proposed. He could understand a proposal that the law should be as it was in Scotland, where a wife, as well as a husband, might obtain a divorce for adultery, though he saw great difficulties in that. But the eloquent speech of his noble and learned Friend had not been confined to that, but contained strong pictures of the wife suffering ill-treatment of other kinds from the husband, being deserted by him or beaten by him. Now, he should expect his noble and learned Friend, in the Committee, to tell him what the cases were to which he would propose to apply this remedy of divorce; because he (the Lord Chancellor) must say fairly that he was not prepared with anything of the sort. It was easy to point out such grave cases, which were incident to human nature and to the relations between man and woman, and to show the great oppression which they involved, but it was not so easy to propose a remedy. He (the Lord Chancellor) could not anticipate much good from the Select Committee, but he would not resist its appointment, after the second reading of the Bill. It was due to the House, however, that he should state that he had no measures to propose for the extension of the remedy of divorce to anything except adultery, and adultery committed by the wife—a remedy given to the husband by the practice of the last century and a half; at the same time he should be very ready to hear the reasons on the other side of the question.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn. Then the original Motion was agreed to. Bill read 2a; and the Bill and the Law and Practice of Divorce referred

427
to a Select Committee, with directions to inquire whether any and what alterations it will be proper and just to make in the said Bill; and to report thereon to the House.
House adjourned to Thursday next.