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

-THE PRESS, AUGUST 22,1857. On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the bill, Mr. MONSELL, objecting to the principle that divorced persons should be allowed to remarry, stated his intention of taking the sense of the house against the clause. The committee divided ;—For the clause, 88; against it, 21—majority, 07. The clause was accordingly agreed to. The house then resumed. The Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, the Probates and Letters of Administration (Ireland) Bill, and the Jurisdiction in Siam Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Customs and Excise Bill and the Customs Bill were considered as amended, and ordered for third reading. The sitting was then suspended until six o'clock, when the house resumed. THE MERSEY CONSERVANCY AND DOCKS DILL (No. 2). Sir J. GRAHAM brought up a report of the select committee appointed to inspect the Lords' Journals ; and moved for leave to bring in the naw bill, which (the standing orders being suspended) he further proposed should be read a first and second time. After a short discussion, in the course of which the Speaker was appealed to, and offered no objection to the proposed course, the standing orders were sus pended, the bill was introduced, and read a first and second time ; and it was further ordered that any petition against the measure should not be presented after two o'clock on Wednesday, it being, moreover, understood that any opposition would cause the loss of the bill. INDIAN BUDGET. Mr. V. SMITH, in reply to Lord C. Hamilton, said that the practice of making an annual statement upon Indian finance had arisen from a desire on the part of the house to direct its attention during one day in the session to the state of affairs in India, and the wish to hear the President of the Board of Control explain the prospective estimate of Indian revenue and expenditure. During the present session the unfortunate events that had occurred in India had awakened the attention of Parliament, and upon two or three occasions the house had been occupied in discussing the affairs of India. Owing also to the confusion that had taken place in the north-western provinces, any estimate of Indian finance prepared before the recent mutiny must of course be perfectly fallacious. Under these circumstances, and con sidering the lateness of the session, and the unlikeli hood that members would remain in town to hear any statement be could make, the Government had determined not to bring forward this year the usual statement upon India. In the 52nd clause, which sanctions an appeal to the House of Lords, the limitation of the appeal to questions of law was expunged. The next clause, enabling parties to a marriage dissolved under the act to marry again, as if the prior marriage bad been dissolved by death, gave occasion to many notices of amendments. Mr. ROLT, who had given notice of one to disable the party by whose adultery or other offence the marriage shall have been dissolved from marrying again, moved, however, in the first instance, an amendment, of which notice had been given by Mr. Napier, to restrict the permission JO remarry to the party on whose petition the marriage shall have been dissolved. Sir G. GREY resisted the latter :proposition, and a fortiori the former. Upon a division, Mr. Napier's amendment was negatived by 110 to 50, and this vote virtually de. cided the fate of Mr. Bolt's. _ _ The Chairman was then ordered to report pro gress. The Trustees Relief Bill was withdrawn. The Judgments Bill was committed pro forma. On the order for going into committee upon the Crowded Dwellings Prevention Bill, Mr. RIDLEY moved to defer the committee for three months. After some discussion the house divided, when the amendment was negatived by 44 to 23. The house then went into committee, but the Chairman immediately reported progress. The house adjourned at two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS—TUESDAY. TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL. Lord ST. LEONARDS, referring to the rejection in the Commons of his Trustees Relief Bill, said that on a former occasion he had framed a measure which he hoped would have met the exigencies of the case. That measure had met with objections on the part of the Loid Chancellor, who said it was impracticable; it was now before the public and the profession, they would form their opinion of it, and he begged to give notice that he would reintroduce it next session. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, denied that he had said the proposed measure was impracticable. Their lordships' house was not the proper place to discuss the matter. He was ready to give his most anxious attention to any bill in the next session which Lord St. Leonards might introduce on the subject. DIVORCE BILL. Lord ST. LICONARDS asked what course the Govern ment proposed to take. Lord GRANVILLE said, that as Lord St. Leonards bad not given notice of his question he was not able to give him a decided answer. Lord CAMPBELL hoped that however the session might be protracted it would not be closed until full time had been afforded to their lordships for considering the amendments made in the other house. Lord REDESDALE did not think there was time to consider the alterations during the present session. Lord GILANVULE declared the Government would certainly not adopt the implied suggestion—that the bill should be postponed to the ensuing session. On the order of the day for considering the Com mons' amendments to the Probates and Letters of Administration Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR made a brief statement of the nature of the amendments made in the bill in the other house, which after a slight opposition on the part of Lord WEXFORD were agreed to. The house adjourned at ten minutes to seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—TuzsDAT. DIVORCE BILL. The house, at the early sitting, went into com mittee upon the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, when certain resolutions were agreed to for imposing stamp duties, and then resumed the consideration of the bill at the point where the discussion left off on the preceding evening—namely, the 53rd clause. That clause, enacting that, on the dissolution of a marriage, " it shall be lawful for the respective parties thereto to marry again, as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death," was opposed by Sir W. HEATHCOTE, who, in the absence of Mr. Gladstone through a domestic calamity, moved an amendment, of which Mr. Gladstone had given notice, to leave out the words "as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death," and insert "in the office of the registrar." This alteration, he said, would obviate conscientious scruples and prevent Parliament from exceeding the functions of a civil Legislature, thereby avoiding what he regarded as one of the great evils of this bill. The ATTORNEY•GENEBAL observed that the question whether it should be made matter of legal obligation upon clergymen of the Church of England who did not desire to perform the ceremony of marriage between parties one or both of whom had been divorced to celebrate such a marriage was a most important one, and should be approached in a most THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN INDIA. Mr. DISRAELI wished to know whether the Presi dent of the Board of Control would be prepared to lay upon the table the act recently passed by the Legislative Council of India (No. 15 of theyear 1857) restraining the liberty of the press in the dominions of the East India Company. Mr. V. Small : There is not the least objection to lay it upon the table. The right hon. gentleman is aware that it was only passed for one year. Mr. Disnam.l would be glad to have two other documents—one a copy of the despatch of the Governor-General explaining the reasons why the act for restraining the liberty of the press was ex tended to the loyal European portion of the inhabi tants of India as well as to the natives, and also a copy of the memorial and remonstrance addressed to the Governor-General by the European population. If the right hon. gentleman did not object to the production of these documents he would put a notice upon the paper and move for them to-morrow as unopposed returns. Mr. V. Smart had no objection to lay upon the table a copy of the despatch of the Governor-General. He was not quite certain as to the memorial, but he would see whether it could be also produced. Mr. LABOUCHERE, in reply to Mr. Kinnaird, stated that it was intended to prohibit in future any priest or other minister of religion from being elected a member (,f the Legislative Council of Malta. DIVORCE BILL. The house returned into committee upon the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill. The 31st clause empowers the court, where the adultery has been established, on the petition of the husband, to impose a fine upon the adulterer, he having been made a corespondent, and to order him to pay the costs. Mr. PULLER proposed to amend this clause by empowering the court to punish the respondent and correspondent by fine, or imprisonment, or both, as if convicted of a misdemeanour. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to making adul tery a criminal offence. After a long discussion the clause was agreed to, with the omission of the words authorising the im position of a fine upon the adulterer, which the ATTORNEY -GENERAL proposed to make the subject of another clause. . . 817 temperate manner. This amendment involved two propositions,—first, that innocent parties should be compelled to marry before the registrar ; secondly, that marriage celebrated in facu Ecclesia was in the eye of the Church to he regarded as indissoluble. He pointed out the social evils which would be the prac tical consequences of adopting the amendment, and recommended that it should be withdrawn, and that the great question, whether or not the clergy of the Church of England should be exempted from the obligation to marry divorced parties, should be raised in another form, and be tried and decided upon the amendments of which Mr. Walpole and Major War. burton bad given notice, and which distinctly raised that simple question. The amendment was ultimately withdrawn. Major WARBURTON moved a proviso at the end of the clause, "That no priest or deacon shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure for solem nising, or refusing to solemnise, the marriage of any person who shall be divorced by virtue of the act." In the course of the discussion of this amend ment, Mr. WALPOLE, who urged very strongly that Par liament had no right to put an undue strain upon the conscience of any party, and to place him in the dilemma of being compelled to obey or disobey one of two laws, earnestly appealed to the Government to acquiesce in the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was authorised by Lord Palmerston to propose a qualified accept ance of the amendment; but before he stated the terms, he set before the committee the considera tions that had weighed greatly with the Govern ment, and avowing that he gave way not upon conviction, but in deference to those who deeply felt that the interests of the Church of England would be promoted thereby, be warned the house in a very solemn and impressive manner of the evils that might follow in the train of this amendment. Assuming, however, that the house would well weigh the matter, the Government were willing, if a great majority were in favour of the amendment, to con sent to a proviso in these terms :—" That no priest or deacon shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or cen sure for refusing to solemnise the marriage of any person whose adultery or crime has been the CattEo of the dissolution of the marriage." After some further discussion - , in order to meet an objection of Sir W. HEATHCOTE, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL substituted the follow ing form of the proviso, partly adopted from Mr. Walpole's proposed amendment :—" That no clergyman in holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland shall be compelled to solemnise the marriage of any person whose former marriage may have been dissolved on the ground of his or her adultery, or shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure for solemnising, or refusing to solemnise, such marriage." In this state of the question the sitting terminated. Certain bills were forwarded a stage. In the evening, in reply to Mr. Stafford, Sir J. RAMMER stated the arrangements made for the clothing of the troops embarked, or to em bark, for India. COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES IN INDIA. Mr. DISRAELI inquired whether it was intended to compensate the British subjects for their losses in India. Mr. V. S➢IITH replied that a scheme of com pensation was under the consideration of the Court of Directors, which had not yet been submitted to him. COMMERCE WITH TURKEY. Mr. HADFIELD asked a series of questions relative to our commercial relations with Turkey. Lord PALMERSTON said that several questions were yet under consideration; meanwhile, England was in relation to Turkey commercially under the Treaty of 1838, and that those relations were in a satisfactory state. The Customs' Duties Bill was read a third time and passed. The report of the oommittee on the Stamp Duties, Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, was brought up and agreed to. DIVORCE BILL. The house then returned into committee upon the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, resuming the consideration of the proposed amendments of the 53rd clause, the question being whether Major War burton's proviso or the Attorney-General's should be adopted. Upon a division, Major Waiburton's proviso was negatived by 77 to 58. Mr. CRAUFtTRD and Mr. WIORAM both moved amendments to the Attorney-General's proviso, but both were negatived, and the clause as amended was then agreed to. Mr. Burr moved to omit the 54th clause, which abolished the action f,r criminal conversation, re marking that, cs the bill then stood, there was no substitute for this action, the power of imposing a i~