The Press. — London, England, 1857-08-22 00:00:00

IT 818 fine upon the adulterer having been withdrawn from the bill. _ Upon a division the clause was carried by 78 to 40. Mr. MALINS inquired what course the Government intended to take to punish the adulterer. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that, although he should be extremely sorry to retain the action of criminal conversation, which was an opprobrium on the country, some such remedy was needed, and, if the proposal was acceptable to the general body of the committee, he had no objecti3n to endeavt.ur to embody in a clause a provision that., when a husband presented a petition to the court, he should say whether he desired damages against the adulterer or not., and, if he did, how he wished them to be ap plied ; and that, on the hearing of the petition, a jury shall determine by their verdict if any and what amount of money should be paid by the adulterer, and the manner in which it should be applied. The clauses contained in the bill having been gone through, the committee proceeded to consider the new clauses. One of these clauses, moved by the ATTORNEY GENERAL, and agreed to, gave jurisdiction to enter tain and decide upon petitions for judicial separa tion to the judge of assize for the county, or any other person named in the commission of assize, and appointed by the judge, or the chairman, or assistant chairman of the quarter sessions for the county or district, or the recorder of any city or borough in which the husband and wife were last resident. A clause for the protection of the earnings of a woman after,'separation from her,husband was also inserted. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then proposed a clause to the effect that proctors in the Ecclesiastical Courts in England should, at the expiration of two years after the passing of this t act, be entitled to make a claim for compensation to the Treasury Commis- sioners. The clause was agreed to. The other business was disposed of, and the house adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-MEDNESDAY. NEW MEMBER. Major EDWARDS took the oaths and his seat for Beverley, in the room of Mr. Glover, unseated. He was introduced by Sir William Joliffa and Sir William Heathcote. FOR DEBT. Sir G. GREY, in reply to Mr. Hadfield as to whether the Government intend to bring in a bill next session of Parliament to abolish imprisonment for debt contracted without fraud, said the subject was under consideration, but he ' could not then give any promise with reference to the introduction of a bill. SALE UP OBSCENE BOOKS, &C., PREVENTION BILL. The house went into committee, and amendments moved by Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. AruroN—making it necessary that there should be an overt aqt sworn to be committed by the person charged before a warrant should be issued, that there should be an appeal from the decision of the convicting magistrates, and that for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a warrant the exhibition of the objectionable works should take place for gain —were adopted. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. The committee was resumed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL brought up a clause to add to the judges of the coact as already constituted the senior puisne judges of the three courts of common law. It was suggested that this proposition should be introduced into the clause constituting the court; to which Sir G. GREY replied that it was better to have a new clause than to alter the other one. It was arranged eventually that the matter should be discussed on the report. Clauses were also proposed for the establishment of local courts in accordance with a promise given by the Attorney• General on the previous night, and were agreed to after a brief discussion. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then proposed a clause providing that a husband may obtain damages for the adultery of his wife from the adulterer, by the verdict of a jury, in the new court—the money to be applied to the use of the children, or for the support of the divorced woman. The clause was agreed to. A clause providing that a clergyman who con scientiously objecte•l to celebrate the marriage of divorced persons should not have power to withhold the use of his church for the solemnisation of such marriage by clergymen not entertaining a similar objection, was proposed by the ATTORNEY-GENERA!.. Mr. HOPE, Lord J. MANNERS, Mr. HENLEY, and Sir W. HEATHCOTE, protested against a clause which would create nothing but disturbance and dispute among the clergy. Upon a division the clause was carried by 73 to 33. THE PRESS, AUGUST 22, 1857. Mr. N then moved to add, by way of amendment, the following proviso, "The court which pronounces a sentence of divorce shall grant to either of the parties divorced a licence entitling such persons to performance of the marriage cere mony by the incumbent of any parish, not being the parish in which such person has been residing, and such incumbent shall be empowered to marry such person," which was added to the bill. The preamble was then agreed to, and the Chair man was ordered to report progress. The Lords' amendments to various bills were considered, and the house adjourned at five o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS-THURSDAY. The LORD CIUNCELLOR, in reply to Lord Shaftes bury, said that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was to the effect that there was nothing illegal in the cultivation and exportation to China of opium by the East India Company; and, secondly, that such exportation was not in contravention of the treaty between this country and China. Several bills were advanced a stage, and their lordships adjourned at twenty-live minutes to six p.m. HOUSE OF COMMONS-THURSDAY. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill was again considered. A fresh clause was substituted for clause 18. Clauses 15 and 19 were struck out, and for 19 a fresh clause introduced. Several verbal amend ments were made, and the bill was ordered for the third reading on the following day. part of the community, who have been described by the noble lord as so shortsighted, but the conviction that advantage will not be taken of their generosity, and that when the desired result has been accomplished their interests will be consulted, and that they will be allowed to husband those resources which, if an emergency should again arise, can alone enable them to afford similar assist• ance to the Government? It is the economy, the retrench ment, and the reductions of taxation effected after a war which enable the community, when an emergency again arises, to come promptly and powerfully to the aid of the Government (Cheers). I conceive, therefore, that when, as members of the House of Commons, we impress upon the Government the necessity of reductions, we merely do our duty ; and not only do we do our duty to our constituents, who have the first claim upon our con sideration, but generally and abstractedly we adopt a politic course, because we enrich the community, and enable them, when a necessity again arises, to supply the resources which may be required. There is some distinction between the position of a mere member of Parliament and that of a Minister of the Crown. A member of Parliament deems it his duty on the termination of a great struggle, and after the com. mencement of peace, to enforce reduction and retrench ment. Something more was to be expected from the Minister of the Crown. He has sources of information not open to us, and he has a policy in his mind of which we are not the sharers. He has a responsibility on him ten thousand times greater than all the members of Perlis. went put together; and if the Minister believes it to be not wise or expedient to effect reduction or retrenchment, the Minister under those circumstances is bound to come forward, and if he has that conviction it is not only his duty, but, in my opinion, it would be on his part a duty which be could successsfully fulfil, to impress that convic tion on Parliament. If Parliament pressed the Govern ment for reductions which they believe would be injurious to the country, it would be in the power of a Minister—and I am sure it would be in the power of the noble lord, addressing the house in a warning and monitory tone, without making revelations inconvenient to the public service—to make such an impression on Parliament as to induce members to relax in the efforts they were making and in the opinion they were urging. Ido not say that her Majesty's Ministers had a consciousness of the danger of the course they were taking. I commenced by expressing my perfect belief that they had not, though as to some points of degree or of time I might have some difference of opinion ; but in the main the Ministers thought that the time had come when economy ought to be enforced and reduction practised. But did . the circumstances of the empire justify the Ministers in having that opinion? I express my convic tion that they did not. I think the Ministers ought to have been more aware of the condition of the Indian empire than they were ; or, if they were really aware of the condition of that empire, I do not think the Mintsters were justified in the course they pursued and recommended to Parliament. It is easy to say that it is of no use now to inquire what is the cause of what has occurred, but in the long run we must inquire what has been the cause of the convulsion which has taken place. Then we are told that the events were such as no one could guard against; but if we maintain that argument we put ourselves in a false position, for if these things could happen without any human being anticipating them, what use is there for any Government ? If without the slightest expectation twenty four hours beforehand an insurrection can take place extending over a country nearly as large as Europe, and with a population of 180,000,000 of souls—if such a thing could happen without those who are responsible for the administration of that country having the slightest previous knowledge or suspicion of it—l want to know of what use or value is the Administration under circum stances of that kind. Every day something oozes out which shows that the Administration of India ought to have been, if not abso lutely prepared for all that has occurred, most suspicious and prescient of what has happened. You cannot justify now, when you are more acquainted with the circum stances—you cannot, with your knowledge of the insubor dination of the Bengal army, justify that Administration in permitting a post like Delhi, the arsenal of the empire, to be garrisoned solely by native troops, when they must have had information of the mystical symbols of combination and conspiracy circulating in that very city at the com mencement of this year. These are questions noz very convenient now to urge, but when attacks are made on members of Parliament because they performed their duty, after the conclusion of the war, in enforcing economy and retrenchment on Ministers, and when it is said that the fault of our present position is due to members of Perlis. liament doing their duty, it is right for us in our defence to make these remarks, and to impress on the country other considerations besides those which were submitted by the hon. and gallant general. I repeat, we did our duty in enforcing economy on the Government, though it is very much to be regretted, considering what has happened, that we were successful in our policy. I doubt not that the Government of this country acted fairly and candidly by the house in consenting to that great reduction of taxa tion and to those general measures of economy which were adopted. They did believe, no doubt, that they had pro vided sufficiently for all the exigencies of the country, but the Ministers cannot relieve themselves from this grave responsibility which devolves on them, for having, in con sequence of their fatal ignorance of the condition of a great, portion of her Majesty's empire, and of their total negli gence and inadvertence, sanctioned the policy, which Par liament commenced, of reduction, at a time when it is quite clear that if they had been in possession of that informa tion which I maintain they ought to have been in posses. sion of must have appeared a most unwise policy, and which has ptoved most injurious to this country. (Cheers.) Mr. V. SMITH denied that the Government were • in any way responsible for the events in India. and FINANCES OF GREECE. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. Spooner, stated that the commissioners appointed by the protecting powers to inquire into the finances of Greece had not yet made a report ; but he was afraid be could not hold out any expectation that the result would relieve the British Government from the obligation to pay the interest on the loan. TNDIAN COMPENS. Mr. V. Sweat, in answer to inquiries by Mr. Dis raeli, said the scheme of compensation to which he referred on Tuesday did not extend to property in jured or destroyed belonging to all British sub jects, which would open a wide field. MILITIA BILL. On the order for the third reading of the Militia Bill, a discussion of much interest arose, in which Colonel North, Sir F. Smith, Sir De Lacy Evans, Sir W. Williams, Sir H. Verney, and Sir J. Ramsden participated, and which gradually embraced a great variety of topics, including the seige of Delhi, the expediency of sending Sappers and Miners to India, and of employing a steam flotilla on the Ganges, recruiting for the native army of Bombay, the electric telegraph, the conveyance of troops to India through Egj pt, and sending them in screw line-of battle ships. Lord PALMERSTON, in the course of a general reply, pointed out the inexpediency of sending a large portion of our naval force so far as India, and re peated the objections he had previously urged to the conveying troops across Egypt. As for the re proaches cast upon Government for being unpre pared to meet the Indian crisis, and having too hastily reduced the military forces of this empire, the noble lord justified the step upon the ground of the weakness and inability of the Government to resist the pressure from without at the conclusion of peace. As to the employing of a flotilla on the Ganges, he reminded the house that the rivers of India were thickly studded with sandbanks and abounded with shallows. He assured the house, however, that the suggestions made would receive the utmost attention of the Government, which was most anxiously directed to the sad events in India. Mr. DISRAELI said he wished to see a nearer relation established between the regular regiments of the line and the militia, which would be of advan tage to both. Adverting to the operations in India, be observed that much depended upon the fate of Cawnpore, the defence of which was, in his opinion, a more important point than the recapture of Delhi. He wished to know what portion of his garrison the Governor of the Cape was prepared to contribute to the European force in India, there being, he believed, no danger of a Kaffir war. With respect to the reduction of the army in the spring, in reply to Lord Palmerston, the right hon. gentleman considered what were the duties of Government, in questions of retrenchment, with relation to the exigencies of the country, and pointed out the general advantages of reduction in time of peace : I say, therefore, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, that we acted most wisely in the course we took ; because, what excites in emergencies a prompt and pas• sionate response to the appeals of the Government on the