The Bill was opposed by several of the bishops, particularly by the Bishop of Oxford; but the Bishop of London gave to the measure his hearty approval, and the second reading was carried by a majority of twenty-nine. In committee several amendments were proposed and rejected. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved a clause restricting the person against whom the divorce was pronounced from marrying the companion in guilt. This was carried by fifty-three to forty-seven; but another amendment by the same prelate was rejected, its object being to exempt from censures or penalties clergymen who should conscientiously object to officiate in marrying divorced parties. The Bill passed the third reading on the 23rd of June. It came on for the second reading in the House of Commons on the 24th of July. Numerous petitions had been presented there against the measure, one of which was signed by 6,000 clergymen. Mr. Henley moved that it should be postponed for a month, in order to allow time for deliberation; but Lord Palmerston pronounced the motion to be a pretence too shallow to be entertained, though it was supported by Lord John Manners, Mr. Napier, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Henley's motion was negatived by 217 to 130.
In moving the second reading on the 30th of July, the Attorney-General traced the progress of legislation on marriage from the Reformation down. Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church, holding marriage to be a sacrament and indissoluble, had recourse to fictions to escape the operation of the law. But Parliament, proceeding upon settled and permanent principles, had acted as a tribunal for administering the law of divorce. The present Bill gave concise expression to the law, simplified it, and transferred its administration to a more convenient tribunal. He argued that the dissolution of marriage for adultery is not contrary either to the letter or spirit of Scripture, and that the intermarriage of the guilty parties had been supported by the precedents of 150 years. The operation of the ecclesiastical law by which a divorce was obtained a mensa et thoro was no effectual relief to an injured wife, as it allowed the husband to retain his power over her property. Many cruel and barbarous cases had occurred, in which the wife was driven to sue for this sentence, and had afterwards by industry in the exercise of intellectual ability obtained for herself an independent position, and become the owner of property, till the husband returned, laid his hand on her hard-earned gains, and swept all away to gratify his own dissolute propensities. This reproach of our law, this relic of its savage character as regards the relation of husband and wife, would, he trusted, be effectually removed by the provisions of the Bill. Sir W. Heathcote moved that the second reading be deferred for three months. The Bill was also opposed by Mr. Gladstone, who argued against it at length, both on the law of the case and on the authority of Scripture. Adverting to the religious view of it, he asked whether it was consistent with the respect and reverence due to the revelation of God, for Parliament to take into its own hands great mysteries, and the remodelling of religious rites? Touching, lastly, upon the social question, he urged the evils to be apprehended from the licence of divorce, and from shaking the idea of the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage, founded upon the great precedents of human history, and warned the House against entering upon a road which would remove us from a point to which Christianity had brought us. The Attorney-General replied and the motion against the Bill was rejected by a majority of 111; the numbers being—for the amendment, 97; against it, 208. In committee, Mr. Walpole urged the Government to accept an amendment proposed by Major Warburton, to the effect that no priest or deacon should be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure, for solemnising, or refusing to solemnise, the marriage of any person who should be divorced by virtue of the Act. The Attorney-General solemnly warned the committee of the consequences of this concession. "You are about," he said, "to give the clergy an exemption; and upon what ground? Upon the ground of the sin, guilt, and criminality of the charge affecting those who come before them with a request that a religious ceremony may be performed. But if that exemption be granted, where are we to stop? Will the clergy not reason most consecutively from this exemption when they say, 'You have exempted us from doing violence to our consciences in this matter; but why do you leave us under the necessity of submitting to the violation of our consciences in others, i.e. the marriage of notorious free-livers and so forth?'" The committee, however, decided in favour of the clause by 73 votes against 33, and it was added to the Bill.
In consequence of the adoption of the foregoing clause another was added—namely, "That when any clergyman refused to perform the marriage ceremony in the case of divorced parties, it might be lawful for any other minister of the Church of England, licensed within the diocese, to perform that ceremony." The Bill, very much altered, having passed the Commons was sent up to the Lords to have the amendments sanctioned. Lord Redesdale moved that the amendments of the Commons be taken into consideration that day six months. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Campbell reprobated this motion, and Lord Lansdowne affirmed that it was contrary to the practice of the House for forty years for any peer thus to move the rejection of a Bill of which he was neither the author nor the mover. Lord Redesdale then withdrew his motion. The amendments of the Commons were considered on the 24th of August, the House having agreed to do this only by a majority of two. All the amendments but two were adopted. The Commons concurred, and the Bill became the law of the land. The court established under the Act soon became well known under the efficient presidency of Sir Cresswell Cresswell, who was instrumental in giving relief and freedom to an immense number of aggrieved husbands and wives. The number of cases that came before him, however, might lead to a false impression with regard to the state of matrimonial life in England, because cases had been accumulating for many years, in consequence of the want of a legal remedy. When this accumulation was cleared off, the amount of business in the court indicated a much more favourable condition of married life in the middle and lower classes of English society. The Act did not extend to Scotland or Ireland. The Scots did not need its facilities for divorce, and the Irish indignantly protested against the extension of its provisions to their country.
The opening of the year 1858 was signalised by a daring attempt on the life of the Emperor Napoleon. On the 14th of January, at half-past eight o'clock, just as he arrived with the Empress at the door of the Italian Opera in the Rue Lepelletier, three explosions were heard proceeding from hollow projectiles, one of which perforated the hat of the Emperor, and another struck the neck of his aide-de-camp, General Roquet, who was sitting in front. A considerable number of people standing at the doors of the theatre, and some soldiers, were wounded, but only two mortally. Two of the footmen also were wounded. One of the horses of the Imperial carriage was killed, and the carriage itself was broken by the force of the explosion. The escape of the Emperor and Empress seemed almost miraculous. This was the celebrated Orsini plot, which was very near involving Great Britain in a war with France and led to proceedings in the British Parliament that resulted in the overthrow of Lord Palmerston's Administration. On the 20th of January Count Walewski sent a despatch to Count Persigny, then French Ambassador in London, in which he charged, in very strong terms, the British Government and nation with something like complicity with the assassins. "This fresh attempt," he wrote, "like those which preceded it, has been devised in England. It was in England that Pianori formed the plan of striking the Emperor; it was from London that, in an affair the recollection of which is still recent, Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, and Campanella directed the assassins, whom they had furnished with arms. It is there also that the authors of the last plot have leisurely prepared their means of action, have studied and constructed the instruments of destruction which they have employed, and it is thence that they set out to carry their plans into execution." He stated that the Emperor was persuaded of the sincerity of the sentiments of reprobation which the crime created in England. He appreciated and respected the liberality with which England exercised the right of asylum to foreigners, victims of political struggles. He did not complain of that, but very different was the case of the skilful demagogues established in England. It was no longer the hostility of misguided individuals manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press—no longer even the work of the factions, seeking to rouse opinion and provoke disorder. It was assassination, elevated to a doctrine, preached openly and practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which had just struck Europe with amazement, and he asked, "ought the right of asylum to protect such a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the English Legislature to contribute to favour their designs and their plans, and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their flagrant acts, place themselves beyond the pale of common right, and under the ban of humanity?"
Lord Clarendon, who was then Foreign Secretary, did not send an official communication to Lord Cowley in answer to this despatch, but contented himself with giving private instructions to lay before the French Government the sentiments, views, and intentions of her Majesty's Government, which was thought to be a much more prudent course to be adopted with a view to allaying the excessive irritation of the French nation and army at the time. The despatch of Count Walewski, however, excited general indignation in England, which was rendered more intense by the fact that very violent military addresses to the Emperor, full of abuse and threats towards England, had been inserted in the official Moniteur. There was afterwards a good deal of correspondence, which assumed a conciliatory tone on both sides; but in the course of which the Emperor insisted on the necessity of passing a new law, in order to prevent conspiracies like that of Orsini. Towards the end of January he wrote to his ambassador in London, saying, "I do not deceive myself as to the little efficacy of the measures which could be taken, but it will still be a friendly act, which will calm much irritation here. Explain our position clearly to the Ministers of the Queen; it is not now a question of saving my life; it is a question of saving the alliance."
Yielding to his pressure, Government, on the 8th of February, brought in a Bill to "amend the law relating to the crimes of conspiracy and incitement to murder, either within or without her Majesty's dominions, and whether the person killed or to be killed were a subject of her Majesty or not." Such was the state of facts that became the subject of discussions in Parliament which led to the defeat of Government. The signal for commencing the war was given by the introduction of the Conspiracy Bill, the alleged necessity for which was urged by Lord Palmerston. If our law was defective, we should not abstain from altering it because other nations had given way to impulses of passion, perhaps of fear. To the motion for the introduction of the Bill, Mr. Kinglake moved the following amendment:—"That this House, while sympathising with the French nation in its indignation and abhorrence at the late atrocious attempt made against the life of the Emperor, and anxious, on a proper occasion, to consider the defects of the criminal law of England, the effect of which may be to render such attempts vain, deems it inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's despatch of January 20th, until further information be obtained, and until after the production of the correspondence between the two Governments subsequent to this despatch." Leave was given to introduce the Bill by a majority of 299 to 99. But the indignant feeling of the country at anything like foreign dictation slowly gathered strength, and at length became terrible and irresistible. Public meetings were held at which the Conspiracy to Murder Bill was denounced in the strongest terms. It came on for the second reading on the 19th of February, when Lord Palmerston did all in his power to mitigate the hostility against it, and its supporters generally laboured to keep out of view its political and international bearings, and to treat it merely as a domestic question of law reform. An amendment was moved by Mr. Milner Gibson, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In the course of his speech he quoted from the Times a passage, which was received with cheers, to the effect that there was no constituted authority in Europe with which Lord Palmerston had not quarrelled, no insurrection that he had not betrayed; while, on the other hand, when he had made up his mind to court the good will of a Foreign Power, no sacrifice of principle or of interest was too great for him. Mr. Gladstone, at the conclusion of a powerful speech, made the following impressive remarks, as to the tendencies of modern society on the Continent:—"Sir," he said, "these times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century; we talk of progress; we believe that we are advancing; but can any man of observation, who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe, have failed to perceive that there is a movement indeed; but a downward and backward movement? There are a few spots in which institutions that claim our sympathy still exist and flourish. They are secondary places; nay, they are almost the holes and corners of Europe as far as mere material greatness is concerned, although their moral greatness will, I trust, ensure them long prosperity and happiness. But in these times, more than ever, does responsibility centre upon England; and if it does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws, and upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of Parliament—the chief hope of freedom—which attempts to establish a moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures, will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every country in the world." Mr. Disraeli, though he voted for the introduction of the Bill, now voted for its rejection. The question now was, not between this country and France, but between the House of Commons and the British Premier. After a spirited reply from Lord Palmerston, the House divided; when the Bill was rejected by a majority of 19, the numbers being, ayes 215, noes 234. So entirely had the debate been mismanaged that many observers thought Government were courting defeat, in consequence of the pending question of the extremely unpopular appointment of Lord Clanricarde to the office of Privy Seal, but that explanation is rejected by Greville. A vote of censure upon Government, touching the great principles of national policy, left no alternative but resignation. Lord Palmerston could not go to the country again in such circumstances, for if he did, his supporters would be sure to be defeated in the existing temper of the public mind. Addressing the House, therefore, on the 22nd of February, the noble lord announced that Ministers had tendered their resignation to her Majesty, which had been accepted. He understood that Lord Derby had been sent for by the Queen, and he moved the adjournment of the House for a few days to afford time for the formation of the new Ministry.
Lord Derby succeeded in forming an Administration. The Cabinet was composed of the following members:—Prime Minister, Earl of Derby; Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford; President of the Council, Marquis of Salisbury; Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Hardwicke; Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole; Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury; Colonial Secretary, Lord Stanley; War Secretary, General Peel; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli; First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington; President of the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough; President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Henley; First Commissioner of Works, Lord John Manners. Sir Fitzroy Kelly was Attorney-General; Sir Hugh Cairns, Solicitor-General; Mr. Inglis, Lord Advocate of Scotland; and Mr. Baillie, Solicitor-General. The Irish Government was composed as follows:—Viceroy, Earl of Eglinton; Lord Chancellor, Mr. Napier; Chief Secretary, Lord Naas; Attorney-General, Mr. Whiteside; Solicitor-General, Mr. Edmund Hayes. Lord Derby had made overtures to Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord Grey, but all three declined.