said it was not his inten- tion to offer any opposition to the measure. The general principles of the Bill appeared to him to be sound and reasonable, and he felt great satisfaction at seeing a Bill brought forward which in some respect touched the endowments of the Roman Catholic religion in a spirit of fairness and justice, and without any of those hostile observations, or that hostile tone, which he had so often to deplore in the proceedings of the House with regard to Roman Catholics and their institutions. He could safely say for himself and for those with whom he acted, that whenever measures were brought forward affecting them in the fair spirit that characterised the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) who brought in this Bill, he should be always ready to meet those measures in the same sort of spirit, and to discuss them fairly and in a liberal manner. He begged to state distinctly that the Roman Catholics of this country did not, desire to be legislated for on an exceptional or exclusive principle. They were willing to be dealt with on the same legal principles as Her Majesty's other subjects; but when he said that, he must say it with the limitation which the proposition itself necessarily involved. When it was said of any set of persons or set of interests that they were ready to be legislated for in the same spirit as the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, they expected, nevertheless, that regard should be shown to the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed. Now, the Roman Catholics were placed under peculiar circumstances. For a considerable period all their institutions were absolutely illegal. By the liberality and the wisdom of Parliament that state of things had been, to a considerable degree, altered; and by successive Acts of Parliament they had been more and more treated in the same manner as other religious denominations in this country; but, notwithstanding that, there remained objectionable legislation still in existence affecting Roman Catholics; and, therefore, when a measure was brought forward referring to subjects of this nature, great care must be taken so to modify the measure that it may work no injustice, having regard to the peculiar laws and institutions under which the Roman Catholics and their institutions were placed. The task of so adapting such a measure was one of great difficulty and delicacy. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Headlam) had shown in this Bill a laudable disposition so to deal with these institutions; but at the same time he thought it was utterly impossible that the House could properly deal with all the circumstances and the complicated legislation that must be considered in reference to the adaptation of this Bill to the circumstances of the persons whom he represented. It would be impossible for that House to do it, and therefore he thought it would be conducive to good legislation, and answer the purpose of the hon. Gentleman himself, to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, for the purpose of thoroughly considering all those matters. He did not offer that suggestion with any intention of obstructing legislation. The business before the House was so light, that he thought it would be very easy in about a week's time to consider the Bill in a Select Committee, and he was sure if it went through that ordeal it would be more satisfactory to all the parties affected by it. He felt bound to offer the suggestion, not merely from a consideration of the interests of the Roman Catholics, but because it affected all the great charities in the kingdom. All the great foundations in London and all over England were affected by it, and it was impossible to carry through this Bill so as to do justice to all these cases without the consideration of a number of nice points of law and conveyancing that could not be considered by the House. There were clauses, for example, to cure defects of title, and those defects of title and the clauses to cure them were matters of great nicety on which experienced conveyancers might probably differ; and he was sure that the great charities of the country would feel they were much more safely and wisely dealt with if they found that a Bill touching matters of title and matters of so much importance had been considered by persons duly qualified in a Select Committee, than if it were passed by the House without going through that ordeal. He thought that the Bill, founded as it was upon a just principle, involved something beyond what appeared in the Bill itself. The principle he took to be this, that families should not be disinherited and injured for the sake of the enrichment of ecclesiastical or other charities. It was that distinction which ought to exist between private property and property of a different description, which if devoted to public charity, must be regulated by a species of law totally different from that private law which regulated the private property. But the question was a much wider one than that raised by this Bill. The real question was, whether the law of England, which allowed a man to disinherit his children, or the law of Scotland and other countries, which prevented him from entirely disinheriting his children, was the sound one. As the law stands now, a man, supposing him to be possessed only of landed estates, would be precluded from leaving anything whatever to any charity by will, though he had no wife or children, or other near relations; but a man, with a large family of children and a wife, had the power by his will to take the inheritance away from his wife and children and leave it to any worthless person in a manner detrimental to morals and injurious to the feelings of every person who knew the duties that a man owed to his family and to society. Though the law restrained a man from giving the property to a charity, it did not restrain him from throwing it away or leaving it away from his family for any purpose caprice might suggest, provided it was not for charity. Taking those things into consideration, it appeared to him, when they were called upon to give their opinion on the whole question of the power of disposing of property and the difference that exists between the law of Scotland and of England on that subject, that such an investigation, though not necessarily a long one, would be of very great value and importance. He promised that he would do all in his power to compress the investigation within such limits as would not obstruct the progress of the Bill. He thought it would be a valuable modification of this Bill if some power were allowed to a man on his deathbed to dispose, in accordance with a conscientious feeling and a conviction of duty, of a portion of his property for charitable purposes. He, for one, was against deathbed dispositions as a general principle. When made for ecclesiastical purposes, they were liable to cause scandal, and had brought a degree of blame, most unjustly, on the Church. Therefore he thought the hon. Gentleman acted wisely in providing against deathbed dispositions as a general rule, in favour of charities; but he thought that a modification of the sort he bad suggested would be very valuable, because it would reconcile that deathbed charity with the duties a man owed to religion and his conscience in many cases. It would enable him to do that which he ought not to defer until his deathbed, but which it was better should be done on his deathbed than not done at all. It would prevent the distress of mind that might happen to people on their deathbed who felt they owed it as a duty of conscience and religion to do some act of charity, restitution, or reparation, before they departed this life. The man who had that feeling should not be deprived of the consolation in his last moments of indulging that feeling, provided he could do it without inflicting injustice or hardship on any of those for whom he was bound in conscience to provide, and who should be the objects of his solicitude. Those reasons led him to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to allow this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. He would take that opportunity of referring more particularly to one clause, about which he thought there was some misapprehension; and he thought that clause required to be very well considered in a Select Committee. He alluded to the 18th clause, which was supposed to deal with what was called secret trusts. He thought a great deal of confusion of ideas existed with regard to secret trusts. A secret trust was as much a trust as a trust that was not secret; the only difficulty was to discover that secret trust. He apprehended that that could be done now by the machinery and proceedings in the Court of Chancery. The Attorney General might file an information, and put a man on his oath, and oblige him to answer very stringent interrogatories, the effect of which must be to elicit whether he held the property under any trust whatever. lie would give an instance. A considerable time ago a sum of 100,000l. was left to the then Catholic bishop of the London district, Dr. Bramston. An information was filed against him, and he was asked whether this was his private property, or whether he was not bound by a secret trust to give that property to religious purposes belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, which at that time it was illegal to do, and which involved the forfeiture of any money left for such a purpose. The bishop considered the matter most scrupulously and conscientiously, and though he might have said, certainly, that legally and in point of law it was his private property, and he might have done anything he pleased with it; still he honestly admitted he did hold it as a trust, feeling that he did hold it as such, and was bound to apply it to the purposes of religion; and he sacrificed the whole of that large sum of 100,000l., though he might have merely answered the question with reference to the law, and said it was his own property. He (Mr. Bowyer) mentioned this circumstance, not merely to show the honourable feeling of the right rev. Prelate, but to prove that, with reference to a secret trust, it was dealt with, when discovered, at law as if it were not a secret trust. What were called secret trusts were not trusts at all. Where a man had property left to him, and felt bound in conscience, either on account of his position, or because he thought it would be agreeable to the wishes of the person who left it to him, to apply the money to charitable purposes, that was not a trust at all. It was just like a debt of honour, and every one knew perfectly well there were a great number of moral obligations which the law could not enforce. He defied the hon. and learned Gentleman, with all his legal skill and assiduity, to frame any measure which should deal with all those conscientious obligations; any provision which would trench on the distinction between legal and moral obligations would only induce confusion and difficulty. For these reasons he intended to press the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow the Bill, after it had been read a second time, to go in due course to a Select Committee, and should he be on the Committee he would do everything in his power to facilitate the passing of the Bill through it, and to give effect to the sound principles on which this valuable measure was framed.

said, he did not intend to offer the least opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to much credit for the able manner in which he had brought this important subject before the House. He was glad to collect from the observations of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that he had no objection that the principles of this Bill should be extended to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman had justly pointed out the mischief of deathbed grants, and he, for one, was quite willing that the ecclesiastics of his Church should be dealt with like those of any other religious community. In Ireland, they had a very excellent institution—the Charitable Bequests Board—on which some Roman Catholic laymen of the highest character sat, and when a bequest was lodged in their hands, they took care that it was applied bonâ fide to the purposes for which it was given. With respect to secret trusts, if the provisions of the measure were made sufficiently pointed, he should be happy to support them.

said, he would not advise the author and supporters of the measure to assent to the proposition now made for referring it to a Select Committee. Two Committees had already sat on the subject, and it had during two Sessions gone through the most careful investigation, of which the present Bill was the result. It seemed to him to express the conclusions to which the Committees had arrived as clearly and shortly as possible, and was of a character by no means complicated in its details. It extended cautiously and carefully principles which had been sanctioned by their recent legislation, the dispositions of the measure being governed by similar rules, and the chief addition being the provision of facilities for new sites to schools and churches. The Bill also enacted certain limitations whereby the disposition of personalty was controlled in the same direction as that of realty, which to him seemed the most valuable part of the measure. It did not go to the full extent which might perhaps be desirable, of placing personalty on the same footing as realty. As regarded the main object, it was quite enough to restrict its provisions to a definite class of devises, which everybody understood, namely, those for charitable purposes.

said, that with reference to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), he had always been of opinion that the laws of England and Ireland ought to be assimilated. In fact, he should like to see the same laws in all the three kingdoms. Approving of the suggestion to extend the Bill to Ireland, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen would—no one more fit—prepare clauses to carry that suggestion into effect. He was opposed to referring the Bill to a Select Committee, being of opinion that any alteration necessary might well be made in Committee of the whole House. It seemed to be the rule now-a-days to get rid of every measure by sending it to a Select Committee.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose in thinking that there ought to be equal laws for England and Ireland; but it would not be wise, because a Bill of this kind was brought in, immediately to sweep away an existing system in Ireland, which was working well. Any attempt to extend the operation of the present Bill to Ireland would, he feared, be fatal to its passing into law during the present Session.

said, that the existing law of mortmain had presented the greatest objections to the extension of the benefits of charitable institutions. He looked upon it as a main cause of the prodigious success of charitable institutions that they had discarded endowments. In the present state of matters the evil apprehended from any alteration of the law regarding deathbed bequests must be regarded as one of idea rather than anything else.

in reply, said he must beg to explain, that it had been his object in this measure to place all religious sects and persuasions upon the same footing. He could not fall in with the desire of sending this matter to a Select Committee. Two Committees, as had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), had already well considered the law, and their labours, he thought, had quite exhausted the matter. With reference to assimilating the law in Ireland with that in England, he would remind the House that the state of the law in England and Ireland was very different. Hence, although he saw no objection to extending the provisions of this Bill to the sister country, still he doubted whether it would be quite advisable to attempt to carry out the entire matter in one Bill, because that would be putting the English measure in some jeopardy to no very great purpose. Still, if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) thought fit to move additional clauses in Committee, he (Mr. Headlam) would give them his support.

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was divided into two parts. The first part abolished damages to be paid to the husband in actions for criminal conversation, and substituted in lieu a fine, to be paid to the Crown, by way of punishment for the offence. The other part of the Bill every other country adultery was punished gave the woman a right to be heard. as an offence, and it was argued that the With respect to this latter provision he law of England ought to be assimilated to bad heard no difference of opinion. It seemed to be founded on natural justices that the women, who was really the person on trail, should be allowed to appear, either to rebut the evidence offered, or to show, if she were guilty, that her guilt was not of so deep a character as might have been supposed if she had had no opportunity of exposing the real state of things. When the case was tried as one of damages, it was the interest, and sometimes the practice, of the defendant, to blacken as much as possible the character of the woman, in order to show that the husband was not greatly injured by the loss of her society. He would not, however, go at length into any argument on this subject. All persons appeared to be of one opinion, that it was an act of justice to the woman that she should be permitted to have an opportunity of defending herself—the same as every person charged with an offence was on principle allowed to do, and which even the Divine law required. He would now proceed to the question of damages. There was no law in any country in the world except in England which allowed an injury of this description to be paid for in money. It was argued that, as an assault and every other kind of injury were compensated for by money, there was no reason why an injury which dishonoured a family, disgraced and ruined a wife, and destroyed all domestic happiness, might not also be represented by money. But the unanimous voice of the Christian world had pronounced against that proposition. It was unnecessary for him to argue the point, as every hon. Member must feel that there could be no parallel between the case of an assault and of an injury of this deplorable nature. It must be revolting to every right-minded person that a pecuniary remedy for such an injury should exist. It was a remedy adopted merely because the practice of Parliament required that a verdict should be recorded against the defendant before the injured party could proceed to obtain a divorce a vinculo. That was the only reason why the law still tolerated the practice of making it a pecuniary question—a practice revolting at once to the most honourable and most sacred feelings of our nature. But the question had been raised, whether this ought not to be made altogether a criminal proceeding? There was no doubt that in every other country adultery was punished as an offence, and it was argued that the law of England ought to be assimilated to that of other countries. No doubt the question was one worthy of discussion, and, if a clause were proposed and adopted in Committee to make the offence a misde- meanor punishable by indictment, he should be ready to make the necessary changes in the Bill which that alteration required. But it had appeared to him more judicious not to propose, in a Bill of this nature, so great an alteration in the jurisprudence of the country. He thought it more desirable to consider what was the real evil to be remedied, and to meet that evil without going beyond what was really necessary, especially when, by doing so, you would be dealing with a branch of the law so important and so delicate as that of the law of marriage. Another objection had been made against a portion of the Bill to which he thought some weight did really attach. Cases might, no doubt, occur where the loss of the society of the wife might inflict pecuniary injury on the husband. For instance, property might be so settled that, by the loss of the society of the wife the husband might sustain a pecuniary injury. Again, a wife might have materially contributed to the maintenance of the family, and it was obvious that in that case, where the wife had been disgraced by committing the offence of adultery, a pecuniary loss must be sustained by the husband. He had considered this objection, and had consulted several learned friends upon it, and he and they were of opinion that the present Bill would not prevent remedy by civil action in such cases. This Bill enacted that the husband should not receive damages for the mere adultery of his wife; but if, in consequence of that adultery, the party suffered a pecuniary loss, he would then have his remedy by action on the case for consequential damages He believed that was the law. It might be doubtful, and, if so, it was very easy to set the point at rest in Committee. At all events, this was not an objection to the second reading of the Bill. He had been somewhat criticised for not having taken a wider range in this piece of legislation. He had been told he was only dealing with one point of the law in respect to the relation of husband and wife. He believed that in doing so he had acted most prudently. The law in reference to husband and wife was a matter of the greatest importance to society; he therefore thought it wiser to confine himself to an obvious point which demanded alteration, and to apply a remedy to what was defect in a judicial proceeding in which the wife was in reality on her trial, although she had no power to be heard. He therefore sought to give her that power, and, at the same time, to assimilate the law of England to the law of every other civilised country applicable to an injury of this kind, by enacting that it should not be dealt with as an offence that could be compensated for by money; but that it should be treated as an offence against society; and that all temptation on the part of the husband to seek to obtain money by the dishonour of his wife should be taken away. On these two points more particularly, therefore, he asked the House to read the Bill a second time. He would say one word with regard to the law of divorce. He knew he should be blamed for not dealing with that question, but he was peculiarly situated as a Roman Catholic, in reference to the law of divorce. The Roman Catholic Church held that marriage could not be dissolved under any circumstances whatever. That was also the common law of England, which held that a divorce a vinculo matrimonii could not he declared after the nuptial tie had been once made. It was only by the transcendant power of Parliament, which overruled the ecclesiastical and the common law, that a remedy was granted in particular instances. The law of divorce had been examined into by Commissioners of great eminence and learning, and one of those Commissioners, a sincere member of the Church of England, and a person distinguished for his industry and ability—Lord Redesdale—had recorded his opinion in the appendix to the Report of the Commission that marriage ought not to be dissolved, and that it could not be dissolved, thus supporting the doctrine which was held by the Church to which he (Mr. Bowyer) belonged. A question, therefore, of such great importance, and admitting as it did of such wide differences of opinion, was one which deserved the entire and separate consideration of the House, and one which ought not to be mixed up with the subject of the present Bill. He trusted that the House would give this Bill a full and fair consideration. The House ought not to forget that the Bill was one affecting not only the interests of the whole community generally, but one affecting the interests of one class of the community in particular, who had not seats in that House, and, therefore, whose rights and interests ought to be treated by the House with peculiar care and scrupulousness.

said, he regretted that his attention had not been earlier called to the Bill, in order that he might have given his hon. Friend notice of the course which he intended to take; but this Bill certainly appeared to him to be one with which it was not desirable that the House should proceed any further, and he should, therefore, move that it be read a second time that day six months. He thought the most correct title of the Bill, according to what he believed would be its operation, would be "A Bill for the Encouragement of Criminal Conversation." It might or might not be desirable to encourage that species of intercourse, or to make it a criminal offence; but it seemed to him that the House ought to come to some distinct understanding whether adultery was to be made a criminal offence or not. If it was to be considered a criminal offence, then let it at once be declared to be a misdemeanor; but, as the Bill was now framed, it was not stated, and he found it impossible to discover, whether it was meant to make it a criminal offence or not. The first section of the Bill was of a most ambiguous character. It mixed up criminal and civil proceedings in a manner quite unknown to the present law. It enacted that a man might bring an action against another man for having seduced his wife, but that he should not obtain any damages; and it then went on to say that if the defendant was convicted, he might be adjudged to pay a fine to Her Majesty as the Court might think fit; but no power was given to indict the defendant. All that the injured party could do was to bring an action against him, by which he himself could get nothing. It was not difficult to see that such a law would deter many from bringing actions, and the consequence would be, that the offenders would be absolved from paying any damages or fine. But, assuming that the character of the offence should be regarded as criminal, then by the provisions of the Bill the man only would be treated as the offender, and not the woman. Now, he apprehended that if adultery was to be treated as a crime, both parties to the act should be deemed guilty. If they were to legislate criminally, it would be utterly impossible to discriminate between the two parties, the man and the woman. But, again, by the clause as worded, the defendant was only to be fined in case a verdict was found against him; so that he would have nothing to do but to let judg ment go by default, in order to escape a fine. But the anomalies of the Bill did not stop there. The defendant was to pay a fine at the discretion of the Court, but the Judge also was empowered to give costs to the defendant. This was extremely new in the history of our jurisprudence. He certainly had read of a case of crim. con. in which, by the eloquence of Mr. Erskine, a jury was induced to give 500l. damages to the defendant. Whether his hon. Friend contemplated the possibility of a defendant being so ill-used that he ought to have his costs he could not tell, but it was certainly a very novel provision of law. Among other things, the lady was to be allowed to intervene in the action, and certainly in a somewhat anomalous manner. She might appear in Court, but it was not said that she should be a party to the suit, nor that she should, by pleading, deny or confess her guilt, or state what was the issue she wished to raise. Now, all that was new. Since the time that oral pleadings had been abolished, it had always been deemed necessary that before a party came into court he should let the opposite party know what his case was, and whether he admitted or denied the allegations made against him. Now, he agreed with all the improvements that had been made in special pleading, but, certainly, before a person came into court he ought to be made acquainted with the case he had to meet. But by this Bill the lady might come into court and employ counsel without being previously bound to say what was her case; but she might take whatever course she pleased, and, by a subsequent clause, she might have her costs allowed her. These were among a few of the anomalies of the Bill. If they were to admit the principle of the Bill—namely, that adultery should be treated as a criminal offence, subject to a fine, and that damages to the plaintiff should be abolished—then the Legislature must go further, and treat of the question of seduction also, and must deprive the relatives of the person seduced of the right of obtaining any damages. Was the House prepared to adopt that course? It might be said that no pecuniary damages could be adequate to the loss of the society and affections of a wife who had been seduced, but it might with equal truth be said that no damages could compensate a man for the loss of his wife by means of a railway accident, or for the loss of a leg, or of an arm. But was it to be said that, therefore, no compensation was to be given in such cases? That principle would have the immediate effect of abolishing every action allowed by that most beneficial Act which was introduced by Lord Campbell, and a man who had lost a wife or children by a railway accident would have no right of action against the railway company for damages on the ground that no damages could be adequate to the injury sustained. That was, however, in his opinion, no reason why damages ought not to be given. The effect of this Bill, shortly stated, was, that it endeavoured to make adultery a misdemeanor by a side wind, and mixed up a civil and criminal procedure in one enactment. It contained these and other anomalies which appeared to him incapable of being rectified by a Committee, and, under these circumstances, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise at hearing a professed law reformer utter such sentiments as his hon. and learned Friend had just addressed to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to object to any reform which introduced an innovation into the law; he objected to one of the provisions of the Bill on the ground that it was quite new. Undoubtedly, the Bill did introduce a principle that was new, but he (Mr. Craufurd) could not understand that to be a sound reason for objecting to it, if the principle were a good one. The force, however, of all the objections urged by his hon. and learned Friend applied to the details of the Bill rather than to the principle. With regard to the objection which was urged, that if the Bill passed the plaintiff would obtain nothing at all, his hon. and learned Friend seemed to forget that it was only by an action at law that the party could obtain a divorce. The object of the Bill was to enable a man to obtain relief by divorce, and at the same time to do away with that objectionable principle in our jurisprudence—that a man might get money as a compensation for the loss of his wife's honour. If he (Mr. Craufurd) had any fault to find with the Bill, it was that it did not go far enough. It did not go to prevent that tripartite procedure which was at present required in order that a man might obtain a divorce. He agreed with some judicious observations recently expressed by Mr. Justice Maule, in which that learned Judge said that a large proportion of the offences of bigamy arose from the present expensive mode of obtaining a divorce. The Legislature ought to remove the difficulties that at present existed, and it was on that ground that he could have wished this Bill had gone further, and had enabled the Judge, when he was satisfied that the case was a bonâ fide one, to pronounce a divorce at once, instead of the party being required first to obtain damages at common law, then have to go to the Ecclesiastical Court, and finally to go to the House of Lords, before a divorce could be obtained. That was a state of things which cried loudly for reform.

said, he considered the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman in reference to the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment were not called for. The course which that hon. and learned Gentleman had taken proved him to be a sincere and earnest legal reformer, for his object was that every Bill which was introduced into Parliament purporting to amend the law should be intelligible. Now, the present Bill proposed things which were wholly impracticable. Parties were required to go to trial for no good purpose, and the jury were deprived of their constitutional right of assessing damages. The Bill was inconsistent. It made the remedy neither a criminal nor a civil proceeding, but one which it was impossible to act upon.

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Craufurd) in the expression of surprise he had uttered with regard to the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier). He should have expected that hon. Gentleman, as a sincere reformer of the law, to tender his thanks to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) for having introduced this measure. The first objection was, that the Bill took away the common law remedy which the plaintiff had by depriving him of damages, and that, practically, the Bill was one for the encouragement of criminal conversation, but it appeared to him that to enforce a severe fine in the place of giving damages to the individual was to remove a great blot from our law. It was a monstrous thing that a man should be encouraged to seek large damages by parading before the world the shame and disgrace of his wife. The present Bill would prevent unprincipled men from resorting to such a mode of obtaining money, while it would afford to the really honourable and injured party a means of showing to the world that what he sought was, not damages, but a divorce. With regard to several of the objections urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, they were rather of a special pleading character, and fitter to be considered in Committee than to be discussed on the second reading of the Bill.

said, that without wishing it to be supposed that he was not a law reformer, he felt bound to express his dissent from the Bill. The existing system was marked by anomalies and imperfections, but the Bill would increase them tenfold. The measure applied to only one portion of a great subject, which had been attentively investigated by Commissioners, who recommended that it should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. The Bill touched only the surface of the question. It would prevent a man coming into a court of law to seek compensation for the injury sustained by the seduction of his wife; but in some cases this would work injustice. Suppose a man married to a woman who had 1,000l. a year for her own use. The money was applied to the maintenance of the family. A man seduced the wife; she applied the 1,000l. a year to the support of the paramour, and the injured husband could not obtain a farthing in the way of compensation. The mixture of civil and criminal procedure was also a very objectionable feature of the Bill. In the event of a man being unable to pay the fine which the court might impose, was he to remain in prison for life? The Commissioners had proposed that a separate tribunal should be established for the trial of all questions of divorce, and that to this court all the matrimonial questions at present decided in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be transferred. They also recommended that the jurisdiction of the new tribunal should be of a mixed character, partaking of common law, equity, and ecclesiastical law. The scheme of reform thus sketched out by the Commissioners was of a comprehensive and important character, but the present Bill dealt with only an isolated portion of the case, and that in an immature and imperfect manner. He would therefore recommend the hon. Member for Dundalk to withdraw his Bill and reserve his views upon the matter until the whole question came before the House.

said, he thought the Bill ought to be read a second time, and either referred to a Committee of the whole House, or sent to a Select Committee, where the various objections which had been advanced might be removed. He considered, in spite of what had been said, that it was a strong argument in favour of the Bill, that under its provisions the only inducement which the husband would have to bring an action would be to punish the offender. He understood that the object of allowing the wife to be heard was, that she might not be sacrificed to any collusion between the husband and the alleged paramour, but that she might have the opportunity, which was now denied her, of defending her own charrcter.

said, he agreed that the whole subject relating to the redress husbands were entitled to, when their domestic honour and happiness were assailed, did require mature consideration; and it was also a matter for mature consideration whether some greater redress than the law now gave should not be afforded to women who were seduced. He could well understand that a husband should not be allowed to derive a pecuniary profit from his wife's dishonour; still it would be a monstrous hardship to say that, under no circumstances should he be entitled to pecuniary damages for the injury inflicted upon him by the seduction of his wife. Take the case of a wife who had a separate income, secured upon her own property, upon which the husband or the children were dependent: it would be monstrous to say that the husband should not only lose his wife, but that she might transfer the whole of the fortune which she brought him to her paramour, and the husband have no remedy. [Mr. BOWYER: My Bill would not affect a case of that kind.] As it was now framed, it undoubtedly would—it deprived the husband altogether of the power of obtaining judgment in an action for damages. He thought, until they altered the system as to the law of divorce—while they left the husband only a most expensive remedy, which, unless he could afford to spend 2,000l. or 3,000l., he could not command—they ought not to take away from him his right of pecuniary compensation; but if they gave him a cheap and simple remedy in the way of obtaining a divorce, then they would be free to consider whether the right to pecuniary compensation should not be abolished. These were reasons why he thought they should deal with the subject as a whole. If the House should consider that as against the seducer the remedy, instead of being by a civil action for pecuniary compensation, should be a criminal prosecution—that he could understand. In some countries that was the only remedy, while in others there were two modes of proceeding against the paramour—the one, for pecuniary damages for the injury done to the husband; the other, criminally, for the crime committed against society. But if it were said that criminal conversation ought to be no longer in this country a matter for civil action, but for criminal proceeding, if that was the object of the hon. Member, why did he not so provide in his Bill? Instead of doing this he introduced an anomalous system, in which he mixed up the civil and the criminal proceeding together, requiring that there should be a judgment obtained on a civil proceeding to be undertaken by the injured party, and that the Judge should inflict a fine as for a criminal offence. This was a change from the whole system of our legal procedure, in which no such thing as a criminal action was known, and would create complete confusion. He could not agree that they ought to send this Bill to a Committee and try to make something of it there; it was a bad system of legislating to introduce measures defective and impracticable in all their provisions in order that they might be made something of in Committee. With regard to this Bill it was objectionable as not being sufficiently comprehensive; as referring only to one part of a great subject which ought to be dealt with as a whole, as introducing a great anomaly into our legal system, and as being wholly impracticable in its details. The matter was one which had been referred to a Commission, it was under the consideration of the legal authorities, and ere long legislation must take place upon it; but to pass such a measure as this would rather retard than further that object. This Bill, was neither one thing nor the other; it neither made adultery a criminal offence nor left it a civil one. He should, therefore, oppose its being read a second time.

said, he was of opinion that there were cases in which a husband ought to obtain pecuniary compensation for the seduction of his wife, especially those cases in which he thereby sustained a pecuniary loss. This Bill, as it stood, would take away the right of the husband to bring any action for the recovery of pecuniary compensation for any matter arising out of the criminal conversation with his wife, and would therefore, in such cases, inflict an injustice. In cases of collusion with the husband, it was right that the adulterer should be fined, though not that compensation should be given to the husband, and he therefore thought that a power on the part of the Judge of imposing a fine upon the defendant in cases where, on account of the husband's collusion, the jury had given but small damages, would be wholesome and useful. The provision for the representation of the wife at the trial of the action was also, in his opinion, useful and salutary. As the Bill had many faults, he recommended to the hon. Gentleman who had introduced it that he should withdraw it, and frame another that should be more practicable in its machinery.

in reply said, that his arguments in support of the Bill had not been at all affected by what had been said against it. He did not see how this Bill could, as it had been alleged it would, afford encouragement to adultery, when under its provisions the adulterer, who now frequently escaped with the payment of a farthing damages, would always be subjected to a heavy fine. Every hon. Gentleman who had spoken on this question admitted the evils of the existing system, but, as was the usual practice, they all found fault with the way in which those evils were intended to be remedied. In the preparation of this Bill he had taken what he believed to be a middle course, a course which met the existing evils, and did not do more. The principle of his Bill had been admitted on both sides of the House. With respect to one of the objections urged against it, he would say that where a man suffered any special injury by the adultery of his wife he ought to have his action for the recovery of damages; but what he contended was, that the mere fact of adultery ought to be dealt with as an offence against society, and ought not to be made a question of pecuniary emolument. He therefore asked the House to affirm the principle of the Bill by reading it a second time, and reserving for discussion in Committee all objections taken to the details on both sides of the House.

after presenting several petitions in favour of the Declarations Bill, moved that the Bill be read a second time. He said, he had been led to introduce this measure by the concessions which had already been made to Quakers, Separatists, and Moravians, in the substitution of declarations and affirmations for oaths; and had he thought that society bad been in the least injured by those concessions, he should never have thought of carrying the principle of such substitution further. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, when leave was given to bring in the Bill, that there was a certain class of persons who came before courts of justice who would make the declarations proposed by the Bill hypocritically, in order to avoid taking an oath, and so to speak falsely with greater impunity. But that was a class of persons generally the most ignorant as well as the most vicious; and were they for a moment to be put in contrast with the large number of respectable individuals whose tender consciences it was now sought to relieve? The East India Company had some time since substituted declarations or affirmations for the oaths which persons entering their service were formerly obliged to take. The late Dr. Arnold would never have been Regius Professor at Oxford if the University had forced him to take the usual oath. Jeremy Bentham, Dr. Lushington, the late Daniel O'Connell, Dr. Whately, Sir Page Wood, and other eminent men, had expressed themselves, with more or less decision, in favour of substituting declarations for oaths; Richard Alexander, of Leith, had been imprisoned for thirty days for refusing to take an oath, and Mr. Fairbairn, of the same city, for twenty days for the same cause; he therefore thought the time had now arrived when the country ought to be relieved from the cause of reproach arising out of the too common practice of taking oaths imputed by the poet, when he said—

"And hast thou sworn, on every slight pretence,

Till perjuries are common as bad pence;

Whilst thousands, guiltiest of the damning sin,

Kiss'd the book outside that dare not look within?"

He asked no more, by this Bill, than that a large body of his fellow-countrymen and his fellow-dissenters should have conceded to them the same privileges as had already been granted to Quakers, Separatists, and Moravians, and for the very same reasons; and he trusted the House would allow the measure to be read a second time.

said, he willingly admitted that persons who entertained conscientious scruples to the taking of oaths should be relieved from the necessity of taking them; still he could not altogether agree to the Bill of his hon. Friend as it was at present framed. That he did fully admit the proposition that such persons ought to be relieved from the necessity of taking an oath was best shown by the fact that he had joined in the Report of the Common Law Commission recommending this change. There was now before the other House of Parliament, and he trusted that there would soon be before the House of Commons, a Bill making great Amendments in civil procedure and affording considerable relief to witnesses in this particular. It was his intention, with the permission of the House, to introduce that Bill, and he should endeavour also to extend it to criminal as well as to civil procedure. There was, however, this essential difference between the Bill which was at present before the other House and that of his hon. Friend; his hon. Friend proposed to enable a person to make a declaration instead of an oath, upon his mere statement that he had conscientious scruples to oath taking. He thought that that might lead to very great abuse, and he must say that his experience had satisfied him that there were many persons who had a sense of the religious sanction of an oath who were not sufficiently alive and sensible to the moral obligations of a declaration. What he (the Attorney General) proposed was, not, as had been before suggested, to make it incumbent upon persons to register their names before the clerk of the peace or other officer as persons who objected to taking oaths. He thought that that was asking too much, because a man might not be aware, perhaps, of the necessity of such a thing, or, through carelessness, he might neglect to do it; yet the time might come when his evidence might be essential, not to himself, but to some other person, and then in the case of omitting to register his name he would be excluded from giving evidence in a Court of Justice. What he proposed, by way of a middle course, and which he thought would operate as a preventive to abuse, while it would afford all the relief necessary, was, that if the Judge, or other minister of the law before whom the person was to give evidence, should be satisfied on inquiry that he really entertained conscientious scruples against taking au oath, and did not simulate an objection which he did not feel, then such person should be allowed to make a declaration instead of an oath. He thought that this would be sufficient to satisfy all reasonable expectations, and he trusted that after this assurance his hon. Friend would not consider it necessary to press his measure.

said, there seemed to be a perfect agreement in the House that a public necessity did exist for altering the present law. With respect to the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, he would beg to remark that a Judge before whom a witness alleged conscientious scruples against taking an oath was not the proper person to decide whether or no the witness should be permitted to make a declaration, inasmuch as such Judge—and the more so if he were a magistrate in the country—might be swayed by prejudice or caprice to decide against the witness. He thought the witness himself was the party to state the objection which pressed most upon his conscience. What benefit did they expect to derive from the testimony of a man who resorted to thumb-kissing. A man who did that would not hesitate to swear one way or another to suit his own purpose. The scruples against taking oaths were on the increase, and the parties who felt them the most were those who would be most deserving of credit when speaking on their solemn declaration, for, from the very fact of their entertaining those scruples, the obligation to speak the truth would be increased ten-fold on their minds. He thought also that it was desirable, in a public sense, to induce men to be cautious in the matter of taking oaths.

said, it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Bill, as well as the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, had confounded two things between which there was no real connection, namely, the multiplicity of cases of oath-taking, and oath-taking on fit and proper occasions. Both those hon. Gentlemen, however, seemed to agree in thinking that the moment a man said he had got a conscience he might do what he liked. He wanted to know whether conscience was not a common animal property? If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pellatt) had any doubt of that, he begged him to look, the first opportunity he had, at a dog who had got a bone in his kitchen, and see if he did not come out with his tail between his legs, perfectly conscious that he expected and deserved to be kicked. But the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had said that he would be more disposed to think a man was telling the truth when he gave evidence upon a declaration than he would when he was upon his oath. He (Mr. Drummond) had never met, and never hoped to meet, with such an instance of morbid consciousness as was implied in that statement; but he knew there were a great many people in the world who thought it very conscientious to lie. Then the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion said oaths belonged to the monarchy, and that when the Long Parliament came we got rid of oaths. Thank God, then, we had got a monarchy again. He was quite surprised to find the hon. Gentleman assuming to be so much more philosophical than the rest of mankind. There were people superstitious enough to think that it was an act of reverence to cross themselves, and perform other kindred ceremonies sometimes; but, said the hon. Member, more enlightened people look to something much higher than that. Did the hon. Member ever happen to read anything relating to the mode of conducting trials in India? Did we not all know that there was almost nothing which could be found to bind the consciences of those Indians, and that they would not hesitate to say anything they pleased, unless we could bind them to speak the truth in one particular form? Then the hon. Member quoted Dr. Arnold, and all sorts of other authorities. Dr. Arnold was certainly a great man, in a certain sense, and a remarkably long-headed one. He had a very excellent heart, which seemed to have kept him right; but the monitorial caning—of which we had an exemplification the other day—was no great proof of his good sense. The great objection, however, was, that we had to deal in all these matters, not with the two philosophers who had brought in this Bill, but with ordinary men; and he was a bad philosopher, or rather no philosopher at all, who thought he could rule the world by philosophy, and not by experience. We knew very well there were men who respected oaths who had no respect for anything else; and we should be parting with one of the safeguards of truth and justice if we were to say that any man might dispense with the taking an oath whenever he taking took it into his head, and said that he had got a conscience. Therefore persons should no be allowed to ride off on the mere crotchet that they had conscientious scruples to taking just and lawful oaths when necessary.

in opposing the Bill, said, that he was surprised that the House had sanctioned the first reading of a measure of this description. If the arguments of the hon. Gentleman were worth anything they were applicable to the system upon which their cathedral establishments generally were conducted and maintained. A Commission had been appointed some time since with the object of reforming these cathedrals, and they recommended that four canonries only should be main tained in each cathedral to ensure its efficiency, and the hon. Gentleman now proposed that of the four canons attached to the Cathedral of Carlisle one should be abolished. The real question, however, for the House to decide was, whether they would reopen this matter, which had been settled by that Commission twelve years ago. The defence of the law, as it stood, was in the hands of the Government and the House of Commons, and he would leave it to them to say whether they would make an alteration in the law, as it had been settled for the purpose of meeting this particular case. He did not think they would sanction this step, and as no other hon. Gentleman might do so, he would move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, he felt satisfied that the right hon. Member who had last spoken had shown the House sufficient reasons for the rejection of the second reading of the Bill. As he, however, approved of the motive of the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill, he desired to state why, having the same premises, he could not arrive at the same conclusion that the hon. Member had done. If they looked back at the way in which the patronage of the canonries had till within a very recent period been exercised, they could but admit it had been such as had very justly called down on it the animadversion of the country; but they must remember that there was now a Commission instituted for the purpose of examining whether the canonries were worthy of being preserved, what were their functions, and whether they could not be made to bear an important part, as was originally intended, in the education of the people of the country, and until they received the Report of this Commission he thought it was inexpedient to proceed with the present Bill.

said, the arguments in favour of the Bill commended themselves to every one who felt an interest in the Church. Carlisle was divided into four parishes; the cathedral body were the impropriators of the great tithes, which were designed for the spiritual instruction of the people; they appropriated those tithes, while the four incumbents were supported partly by pew rents, and partly by charity. It was possible the Commission now sitting might assign some useful duties to the four canons; but that was a mere speculation; at present they were of little or no use; they received the tithes, while the four clergymen who performed the duties were left in poverty. Nothing could be more practical or better founded than the proposal to apply the income of the canonries as they fell in to the payment of the existing incumbents. For the interest of the population, who would be withdrawn from the Church unless this were done, the House ought to sanction the proposal.

said, he quite agreed in the importance of the subject, but could not approve of the mode proposed for remedying the inadequate incomes of the clergy of Carlisle. He believed that one of the greatest evils and anomalies of the time, which had tended, more than anything else, to alienate the feelings and affections of the people from the Church Establishment, was that the tithes which had been originally given for the maintenance of benefices had been appropriated to different purposes, and the small residue now given was in many instances so wretched as almost to make one blush for the manner in which the clergy were treated. The proper remedy was an appropriation of surplus cathedral revenues; but this might be effected without resorting to such a violent measure as that proposed. He thought the number of canons at Carlisle ought not to be reduced below four. The revenue of the chapter, if properly administered, would be sufficient for the desired end. His Bill for dealing with capitular property generally would meet the case of Carlisle. Upwards of 15,000l. a year was expected to be derived from this property by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who had named 4,800l. as the sum to be devoted to the support of the chapter, so that when the arrangement was complete, by the falling in of the leases, a sum of upwards of 10,000l. a year would be handed over for the general purposes of the Church.

said, he would remind the House that the whole question as to the application of these revenues was under consideration by a Commission. Any legislation, therefore, in the case of Carlisle would be an interference with the general arrangement. If a measure of this kind were thought desirable, it ought to be pro- posed as a Private Bill; and then the inhabitants of Carlisle would have an opportunity of being heard upon it.

said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ferguson) had brought before the House a great grievance, while the remedy which he proposed was very small and moderate in its nature. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that it would receive the serious consideration of the House.

said, he wished very briefly to address the House with the view of suggesting a mode by which the appointment of this Committee might be avoided, and an end put to these discussions, which were attended with so much angry feeling, and could not but be distasteful to many of the Members of that House. The House was aware that by the 56th of Geo. III. c. 100, remedy was given in civil cases, similar to that which the Habeas Corpus Act had previously given in criminal matters. By the first section of that Act it was provided that application for a writ of habeas corpus might be made "in behalf of or by any person" who was "confined or restrained in his personal liberty," but great doubts had existed as to whether such application might be made by a stranger not being next of kin or a lawfully authorised attorney. In the Habeas Corpus Act passed in the reign of Charles II. words were used authorising application to be made by "any one on behalf of" a person whose freedom was restrained; but in the 56th of Geo. III. these words, "by any one on his behalf," were omitted. It was matter of doubt, therefore, whether these words" on behalf of" could be taken to mean a stranger, or one who was not a kinsman or lawfully authorised attorney. He had not, after minute search, found a single case in which the words had been so received; and he had found it decided under the original Act of Charles II. that no one was entitled to take out a habeas corpus for a prisoner without his consent. Under the old Act, therefore, an application for habeas corpus could not be made on behalf of a prisoner without his consent. In a pamphlet headed The Nunnery Question, published, it was understood, under the auspices of the Protestant Alliance, he found it stated that a stranger could not apply for the release of a prisoner without the consent of the person immured. From all these circumstances he was justified in arriving at the conclusion that doubts did exist on the point. He could not part from this pamphlet, however, without adverting to the indications which it gave of the cloven foot of persecution, and of the desire of the party whom it represented to carry matters much further than was generally avowed. In the closing paragraph it was stated that the result of a Committee of Inquiry would be "to secure the enactment of a stronger measure"—meaning thereby a measure stronger than those domiciliary visits which had been proposed to the House. He wished, in passing, to call the attention of the House to this statement, as it evinced a desire to go much further than mere inquiry. The 56th of Geo. III. could not be made applicable to persons who, though not restrained as to their personal liberty, were, nevertheless, not in a condition freely to exercise their will; but he held that the common law of England was sufficient to reach all such cases. He would wish to impress upon the House the reasons why he considered that it would be not only inexpedient, but unnecessary, to appoint the Committee upon this Bill. His principal objection to such appointment was founded on the grounds that, while the Statute law was, as he had shown, unequal to cope with the supposed exigency, the common law, as it at present stood, with its powers of habeas corpus, was quite sufficient to protect the liberties of the subject, and prevent those gross abuses which, it was suggested to the House, did or might occur. In sup- port of this view he might mention that there were various cases which had been reported of applications for a writ of habeas corpus to the Court of Queen's Bench, for the purpose of bringing up the bodies of children or women supposed to have been deprived of their liberty and free action. In a case which was tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, in 1758, a person of the name of Clarke was compelled to produce the body of his daughter on the application of a man, a total stranger to him, who wished to take her away from her home. Again, in 1760, an application was made to the Court by the friends and relatives of Mrs. Frances Savage, a woman addicted to liquor, without her consent, representing that she was in the hands of improper persons, who were anxious to get her to sign away her property by will, and a rule was made upon the defendants to show cause why an information should not be filed against them for the misdemeanor charged against them in the affidavits, and likewise to allow the plaintiffs free and unrestricted access to Mrs. Savage. In the case of Blake, Denman, and others, which occurred in 1763, a writ of habeas corpus was issued, on an affidavit which was given without the consent of the person brought up. He might also refer to the case of the Hottentot Venus, in 1810. In that case the application to the Court was made by the secretary of the African Association, who stated in his affidavit that he had reason to believe that the female in question had been brought into this country and exhibited for money against her consent; and upon that statement the Court ordered the woman to be examined touching the condition of her mind. That examination took place, and the woman stated that she came over here and was exhibited of her own free will, upon a contract to receive part of the proceeds. If, then, the common law of England afforded all the relief that was required, and such relief as the Statute law failed to do, and, if the Court of Queen's Bench had the power fully to enforce the remedies which the common law provided, what was the good of coming to that House to seek for what we already had? If the common law had been unable to give relief, or the Court of Queen's Bench had refused to do so, as carrying out the principles of such law, why, then, it would be time to apply to that House for the appointment of a Committee on a measure like the present; but, as the law stood, even the suggestion of such a measure was crude and unnecessary. Let hon. Gentlemen who seemed to have such an appetite for special legislation introduce a Bill delaratory of the common law—that would be to meet the difficulty in a dignified and constitutional manner. He firmly believed that the common law could meet all the difficulties and exigencies of the case; but, supposing even that any alterations were required which a declaratory Act could not satisfy, he considered that that was no reason why we should by our legislation attack any one particular party or sect; but, on the contrary, that we should effect the necessary amendments, if any were necessary, in a spirit of liberality and fairness with the disposition of men, who seek to remove an imperfection in our law not to add fuel to religious contentions—who legislate as reformers, not as bigots. He thought, therefore, that this Committee ought not to be appointed, and he could not see what good it would answer in any way, even if it were countenanced. He objected, also, to the public funds of this country, at such a period, or at any time, being wasted and consumed in carrying out the prejudice or bigotry of any particular party or sect; and this was another ground why he opposed this measure. He objected, in fact, to the appointment of this Committee for three reasons—firstly, because no case had been made out to justify such appointment; secondly, because, even if any case had been made out (which he denied), be could see no good results that would arise out of the inquiry. If we were not to have the power to call the ladies who were principally supposed to be interested in this question before us, how could we arrive at anything like the truth of these matters? And, if we were to have such power given us, and had the bad taste to exert it, the effect of such a proceeding would be, that any lady who was forced to attend would enter the Committee-room as an object of idle curiosity, and leave it a subject of indignant pity—she would enter a spectacle, and leave it a sacrifice—she would enter a witness, and leave it a martyr. The third reason why he opposed the measure was, because he considered the present time to be particularly inopportune for its introduction, and, as he believed that that day week (the Day of Humiliation), when asking for success for our arms and victory in the day of battle, we ought not to let any party feeling mingle with our devotion, so he hoped that we would not now let that illiberality intrude into our legislation which charity had so properly excluded from our prayers.

said, he rose to make a suggestion to the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers). They must all feel that this continued discussion was not calculated to raise either the character or time dignity of that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had treated the matter as a legal question; the House, he was sorry to say, had treated it more as a religious question. He confessed that he thought the first vote of the House was a mistake. If this discussion, which he ventured to say would lead to no result, were to go on from day to day, and from week to week, the hon. and learned Member for Hertford would do nothing towards gaining his object; but they would all feel that the character of the House was very much compromised by the proceeding. He would, therefore, venture to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he should not take a little time to consider what course he ought to adopt in present circumstances. He was convinced that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman, to-morrow or next day, came down and told the House that he was not disposed to continue the debate in the irritating form which it had now assumed, he would receive the thanks even of his own supporters, while all would feel that he had exercised a wise discretion.

said, he felt as strongly as any one upon this subject, and considered the question before the House to be simply, whether these particular cases were within the reach of the law of the country, or whether—