The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack st five o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Chard Railway Bill was read a second time, and the Hedon Corporation and Borough Improvement Bill was Ea° a third time and passed. CHURCH RATES. The Earl of DARNLEY and the Earl of CAWDOR presented petitions against the abolition of church rates. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY presented petitions praying for an alteration of the law with respect to the dis solving of friendly societies. SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY BILL. Lord COLVILLE of CULROSS presented petitions against the Sunday Trading Bill. Lord CHELMSFORD presented petitions from Bays water and other places in the metropolis in favour of this bill. Lord SONDES presented petitions from Bishopsgate, Holborn, and other places, complaining of the great extent of Sunday trading, and praying for a law to limit trading on that day to articles of necessity. Lord TEYNHAM presented petitions against the bill. Lord CHELMSFORD then rose to move that the house go into committee on this bill. The noble and learned lord said that when he moved the second reading of the bill be fore Easter it was arranged that the principles of the bill should be fully discussed upon going into committee. He therefore entreated a dispassionate consideration of the bill, as he felt convinced the more it was understood the less ob jection there would be to it, and he thought he ought to tell them what the bill was before they proceeded to discuss it. It was not a bill to compel persons to ob serve the Lord's day religiously, but it was one to remove all the obstacles to a proper observance of the Sabbath. The attempt to make men religious by legislatith was impos sible, and the bill he proposed did not introduce any prohi bition or restriction that the law did not impose ; but the law being inefficient, it was sought to strengthen the arm of the law, and to make that which was now weak, strong and efficient. The subject of Sunday trading had been under the consideration of Parliament for many years, and committees had sat, the result being three large blue books ; but when such was the case, for all good purposes the recommendation became a dead letter, for very few persons cared about perusing one of these volumes. (Hear, and laughter.) The extent to which Sunday trad ing was carried on was beyond belief. It was not confined to articles of necessity, but of things that could well be ob tained during the week. The scenes in some parts of the metropolis, when the blue books were printed, were stated to be disgraceful; on Sundays crowds of persons cong-re • gate; mountebanks exposed their nostrums, thieves and prostitutes abounded, and a scene was presented which was beyond description. (Hear.) He did not think the scenes at the present time had much altered. The Bishop of London, in lately presenting a petition from the Lord's-day Rest Association, stated that about one-half of the shopkeepers of London kept their houses open on Sunday, and to check this state of things the law was altogether pow erless, as the fine imposed by the statute was only Zs. He was perfectly aware that the subject he had taken in hand was one surrounded by difficulties, but he trusted that he should be able to convince their lord ships that the bill at present before them would do great good if it received the sanction of Parliament. He had had the honour of presenting a petition from an immense number of tradesmen, who were desirous of legislation on the subject, as they were anxious of being enabled to pay proper respect to the day, but owing to the state of certain parts of the metropolis on Sunday they were entirely prevented from doing so. In the enterprise, as he called it, he found himself assailed by con flicting parties. Some parties complained that any relaxation of the law was an approval by Parliament of Sunday trad ing, but such was not the case, and if these perused the bill they would find that it contemplated all that they required. One of the great obstacles to abolishing Sunday trading was the practice of paying wages late on Saturday night ; but from reports that were now being made in different places by some of the Government departments, several large establishments were paying their workmen en Fridays, and he hoped very shortly such an arrangement would become general. It had been asked why should a strong compulsory law be passed to enforce the general closing of shops on Sundays. The reason why such a measure was necessary was that if certain tradesmen opened their shops on that day and others kept theirs closed, the effect would be that the man who kept his shop open would soon monopolise the whole of the trade of the district. The bill was not one directed entirely against the poor; it affected the sale of certain articles to the poor and the delivery of other things to the rich, so both were dealt with equally. The great difficulties in all bills of the kind they now had under consideration were the exemptions, and he should feel great pleasure in receiv ing the assistance of any noble lord who felt disposed to help him in his labours, and he felt that if the bill passed he should do a great good ; he would redeem thousands of tradesmen from loss, and thus benefit their families and workmen, and if it received the assent of Parliament it would make the Sunday a day of cheerful rest, of religious exercise, and one of real enjoyment. (Hear, hear.) Lord ST. GERMANS said he had paid particular atten tion to the subject of Sunday trading, and he could not give his assent to a bill which would bring about a worse state of things than at present existed. He could not sup port a bill which made that illegal in London which was legal in Manchester and other places. Lord TE YNIIAM also opposed the bill. It was acknow ledged on all hands that whatever change had taken place as to paying workmen on Fridays and so on, yet there were a large number of men who did nit earn until Saturday night the means of providing for their families on the Sun days. If the present bill passed, thousands of persons who arrived in the metropolis on Sundays would have insuper able impediments thrown in their way of getting any re freshment they might stand in need of. The Act of Charles 11. was not a dead letter, for he held in his hand a case which was tried at Southampton under that act in 1858. In fact there were several in which fines from ss. to Bs. 6d. were inflicted for such offences as the sale of farthing candles and a pennyworth of apples. Under the Act of Charles only one conviction could take place, but the present bill was much more penal. A tradesman might under it be pro secuted over and over again, in short might be smitten com pletely to the ground, as the noble and learned lord provided by the 4th clause for a penalty of 10s. for each offence of selling or offering for sale on the Sabbath-day. There was great inconsistency in the noble and learned lord's bill. Publicans were not interfered with, but publicans sold to bacco. At the same time the tobacconists' shops were to be shut, so that the publican might do with impunity that for which his neighbouring shopkeeper incurred a penalty. The Englishman was permitted to buy his beef, but the Irishman must not buy his potatoes, nor the Welshman his leeks. Fruits were permitted, but the pommo de terre was to be a forbidden fruit. If the noble and learned lord wished a return to obsolete administration, let him put the Act of Charles 11., which was equity itself compared with the pre sent bill, into the hands of Sir R. Mayne, and if that func tionary did not prefer resigning his office to acting under it, it would be found amply sufficient for the prevention of Sunday trading. Lastly, he objected to the bill as likely to provoke a collision between the people and the police. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the bill should be allowed to go into committee, so that some fair measure might be framed to check the existing evils. Earl GRANVILLE deprecated legislation on the sub ject. The House of Commons would never consent to pass such a measure. Earl GREY recommended that the bill be referred to a select committee. The Earl of DERBY opposed this course, believing that a satisfactory measure could be framed in committee. On a division, the motion for going into committee was affirmed by 54 to 25. The house went into committee, after which the further consideration of the clause was postponed till Monday. On the motion of the Duke of NE WCAST LHI, a select committee was appointed to inquire what legislation was necessary for the regulation of salmon fisheries in Scotland. The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took tho chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. _ _ _ Mr. BENYON took the oaths and his seat for Berkshire. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time :—Brorapton, Chatham, Gillingham, &c., Water ; Denbigh, Ruthin, and Corwen Railway ; Edinburgh Railway Station Access ; London and South Western and Bristol and Exeter Rail way Companies; Salisbury and Yeovil Railway; Stockport, Disloy, and Whaley Bridge Railway; Wimborne Min. ster and Blandford Forum Road, and Colin River Water. The Kilkenny Junction Railway Bill and Swansea liar bour Tryst Bill were read a second time. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against increased na tional expenditure; for and against the provisions of the Poor-law Medical Relief Bill; against the Highways Bill ; against the duty on fire insurances ; against the Wino Licences Bill; from Scotland in favour of the bill to amend the representation of the people. THE REFORM BILL AND THE BALLOT. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from a public meet ing, composed of members of the North London Political Union, and other inhabitants of London, in favour of granting the franchise to the working classes, and depre cating the use of such language addressed to those classes "clowns," "boors," and other terms applied to them dur ing the debate on the Reform Bill, as being calculated to ex citebad feelings on their part. The hon. member was about to offer some comments, but was called order by the Speaker, who stated that ho was out of order. The hon. member then presented a petition from ministers of different congregations in favour of the ballot, and drawing attention to its beneficial operation in Australia. NEWSPAPER POSTAGE. Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked for copies of all correspon dence between Mr. Thomas Wrigley, the - Treasury, and tho Post-office, to the years 1858 and 1850, on the subject of the postage of newspapers.—Ordered. GUNBOATS. Mr. R. LONG asked the Secretary of th Admiralty whether it was the intention of the Government to replace immediately the gunboats now stated to be i' a rotten con dition ; and, if so, whether any addition to the naval esti mates would be necessary ? Lord C. PAGET answered the first p . of the question in the affirmative, and said that it was not intended to make the addition alluded to. THE POLITICAL CORRUPTION AT WAKE FIELD. In reply to Mr. E. JAMES, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that some persons were very much in error in reference to the course that was intended to be pursued with respect to those persons who had been guilty of corrupt practices at the late election for the borough of Wakefield. The statute was clear in refer ence to such offences, which were misdemeanours, and the delinquents in the present case would be proceeded against at common law. He had that morning given instructions that criminal informations ybould be filed against Mr. Leatham and Mr. Charlesworth, the candidates at the last election at Wakefield, as the principals, and other persons as abetting and aiding in the corruption practised at that election. THE ISLAND OF SAN JUAN. Mr. FITZGERALD asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he was prepared to give the house any information as to the present position of the negotia tions between this country and the United States, with re ference to the Island of San Juan ; and, whether he had any objection to lay the correspondence with the United States Government on that subject upon the table of the house ? Lord J. RUSSELL said he was not determined as to whether he should lay the correspondence on the table. He had little else to add to the statement he had previously made in reference to this matter. He considered it would not be prudent then to enter into a full explanation on the subject of the compromise proposed. The Government made a proposal last August, which was not acceded to by the Government of America. From the last intelligence received it appeared that General -Cass had received instructions on which he had acted. It appeared also that General Harney thought it necessary to place 800 men and a battery of guns, but General Scott, exercising his discretion, considered tkat neither party should have exclusive jurisdiction, and the number of men was reduced to 100. The Governor did not think it right to enter into any compromise, and 100 soldiers wore also landed by him on the island. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. MACAULAY, in resuming the adjourned debate for the second reading of this bill, referred to the opinions entertained by Sir James Macintosh in regard to the subject of Parliamentary reform. He contended that the present bill would not have the effect of extending the franchise to the working classes in large and populous towns. These classes were chiefly dependent on weekly wages, and practically could not be included in the 16 franchise. He strongly objected to the principle of an uniform and monotonous franchise ; which, how ever, was merely transposed and presented in a more aggravated form in the bill of the noble lord the mem ber for the city of London. Referring to the details of the bill, he said it did not contain the elements of stability, and in practice would satisfy neither its opponents nor its advocates. He deprecated most strongly the state- ments made by some of the supporters of the bill, and alluded in particular to the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). These gentlemen evidently considered the bill merely as a commencement of more ex tensive alterations in the franchise of the country. The hon. member for Birmingham at a meeting composed of the advocates of universal suffrage and vote by ballot had asked that meeting to go with him in the adoption of the bill, and that he would go with them afterwards fcr what they re quired, The same feeling was exhibitedin the case of other persons, and therefore they were placed in this position in reference to this measure that a large number of its sup porters considered it only as a preliminary step to more sweeping and more organic changes, and its opponents were satisfied that it would not effect what the former antici pated—it would be productive of most injurious results. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was represented as hav ing a paternal interest in the subject of reform, and had redeemed his pledge in bringing forward this mea sure of reform. He asked that noble lord if, with the feel ing that was exhibited in regard to this bill even amongst the ordinary supporters of Government, he was justified in pressing it forward. Having vindicated his position, he should now act with wisdom, and withdraw a measure which he contended was unusually unpopular. The hon. and learned member then argued at some length in support of his views and concluded with an earnest appeal to the Government not to press the bill this session, but leave the question of reform to the consideration of another Parliament. Mr. GREGORY believed the convictions of 40 out of every 60 members of that house were adverse to the bill. He contended that the result of the bill would be to transfer power from the hands of employers to operatives, and would tend to a dangerous extension of democratic prin ciples. Referring to America, he asserted that the spread of democratic principles in that republic so far from promot ing the happiness or prosperity of the people had an effect directly the reverse. He based his statement on personal experience recently acquired. He saw much in that country that was deserving of adoption here. Some of his friends at Washington expressed much surprise that he should at the time have been favourable to an extension of the franchise to the working classes after having seen the operation of the democratic principle in the United States. He then proceeded to quote a series of anecdotes, much to the amusement of the house, illustrat ing the tyranny of the multitude in America—the intimi dation of the press and the governing bodies—the dissatis faction of all parties out of power—the corruption of all parties in power. The evils thus produced in America would be alarmingly magnified in an old and most artificial so ciety ; and it was from a deep conviction of the consequences elsewhere—consequences which he had only lately per ceived from his experience of the United States—that he viewed with terror and dismay the results of the present measure. He was not opposed to the admission of the working classes, if that could be done by some counter poise of wealth and intelligence. This he hoped might yet be effected in committee. He wished for a mere moderate extension of the franchise, and a further disfranchisement of the small boroughs, but he objected to unwieldy consti tuencies handed over, as in America, to the management of caucuses, combinations, and associations, and to the conse quent retirement from politics of the most eminent men of the country, at a time when, of all others, England would stand in need of her wisest, ablest, and most intelligent statesmen. Mr. LONGFIELD dilated upon the mischief of mob rule, and of the influence of the multitude, even if it were a multitude of Newtons. He protested against taking popu lation as the principle of representation. The multitude must learn to govern themseh es before they attempted to govern other people. Ho quoted a mass of facts to show that the working classes had not increased either in know ledge or in morality. An Hon. MEMBER moved that the house be counted. After a few seconds a large number of members rushed in, and made a house. Mr. D. SEYMOUR accused the last speaker of being one of a party who, not having the boldness and political honesty to meet the question, endeavoured to wear it out by delay. Re protested against introducing American argu ments into the debate, and replied to them by asserting that the bill did not open the floodgates of democracy, or propose universal suffrage—it was a simple extension of the prin ciples of the first Reform Bill. He defended the accuracy of the returns on which the bill was founded, and reprobated the masked batteries upon it from that side of the house, equally with the open fire of the Opposition. Mr. KENDALL denied that the Conservatives at tempted to delay the progress of the bill. Members on the Liberal side seemed still more anxious to find an opportu nity of talking about it than the Conservatives. The chief argument in favour of tho measure seemed to be, that if they did not accept it a worse measure would before long be forced upon them. Sir J. RAM SDEN declared that to pass a measure simply because a measure was promised was simply cheating the public, and he would be no party to any such proceeding. Better delay further proceedings altogether than adopt crude and unsatisfactory provisions. _ _ . - - Mr. WALPOLE said that they were all agreed that the second reading of the bill alone should pass in order to get into committee on the details of the bill, which would require the most careful consideration. There were three objects contemplated in this bill—a large reduction of the borough franchise; an extensive alteration in the county franchise ; and a re-distribution of seats. As to the fait, the noble lord, who was the parent of the bill, had told them the principles on which ho intended to pro ceed. He said they were principles known to the constitu tion, and that this bill was to be considered as a supplement to the bill of 1832. He would join issue with the noble lord on that point. Take the borough franchise. The noble lord departed from the policy he had advocated within these walls ten years ago. He then said the true policy was to introduce variety into the borough franchise, but where wail the variety here ? From the result of that debate, they all agreed that variety of the franchise was the only way in which they could modify the town representation. All the noble lord's former measures of Reform introduced to that house tended to introduce variety. Some included the de positors in savings banks, others put personal property on a level with real property, by admitting to the franchise per sons who had property in the funds. Others, again, insisted that the franchise should accompany taxation, and that, therefore, all who paid the income-tax should have a vote. Then, again, there was the education and other franchises. The first remark he (Mr. Walpole) would make was, that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was deviating from the policy he had himself laid down. The second remark .'io would make wag, that in extending the franchise no guar - antee was taken for the fitness and intelligence of those who were to have it. At present the number of voters for Eng land and Wales, as calculated by the electoral roll, was 410,000; but if they acted upon the principle laid down in the noble lord's bill, the number of voters would be raised from 410,000 to 838,000, or, in other wurds, they THE BU, would be more than doubled. As they descended In the scale, they increased the number and lowered the quality of the electors. If they went down to a £9 franchise, they had 41,000 electors. If they went down to an £8 one, they would have 53,000 ; if to a £7, they would have 78,000; and if to £6, they would have 98,000 voters. Now, the moment they did that, they would get a class of electors subject to all the influences of poverty, to the in jury of those possessed of property. Thus, as they lowered the scale of rental they lessened the character of the constituency by the introduction of a class of persons who were entirely dependent upon the influence of property, and be introducing an element which was entirely in oppo • sition to the known principles of the Constitution, upon which the former Reform Bill was founded. According to the constitution the borough franchise was founded upon property and taxation ; as, for instance, they gave the fran chise to those who were freemen, to those who held by burghage tenure, and to those who paid "scot and lot" in other words, they gave the franchise to those who con • tributed to local burdens equally with their fellow citizens. Now that franchise became limited because close corpora tions had monopolised to themselves the greater part of the power of returning members to Parliament. They knew by returns to what enormous extent that encroachment was carried. But how did the noble lord profess to remedy it ? By the introduction of a£lo household qualification in 1832, coupled with the payment of Imperial taxation. By that act every elector had to be assessed to the payment of the house tax, and of the window tax. Well, they repealed the house tax in 1834, and the window duty in 1851, and thus dissevered taxation from representation, so far as Imperial taxation was concerned, and by that arrangement they threw upon a groat mass of the constituents, who did not contribute to that taxation, the power of returning mem • berg to Parliament, and who thus kept the taxation all above them. (Hear.) What did the present bill do? The noble lord said that he did not intend to alter the law ; but he assured him that he altered it in a most material manner; and he maintained that after they repealed the house tax and the window duty, there was no connecting link between that sort of taxation and the franchise. Under the noble lord's present bill the franchise was not to be connected with any kind of taxation, except one—namely, the poor• rate, which the elector was required to pay. The hon. member for Birmingham was by far the ablest exponent of the views of those who were called " real Reformers," either in that house or in the country. (Hear, hear.) He was not going to make an attack upon that hon. member. He admired his honesty of purpose and the great abilities he always displayed ; but he was prepared to moot him in fair argument. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) Now, he gathered that the whole gist of the hon. member's argu ment was, that they ought to have rating as a convenient means of registration; but that they ought not to insist upon payment of rates. Mr. BRIGHT—Does the right hon. member refer to a speech which I made in this house ? Mr. IVALPOLE—In this house. Mr. BRIGHT was here understood to admit the accu racy of the right hon. gentleman's memory. Mr. WALPOLE—That was a most important admission. Rating was recommended as a system of registration, and the payment of rates in connection with representation was to be given up. (Hear.) The noble lord said he did not alter the law, as, by the 3d "clause, it was provided that all provisions:respecting rating and the payment of rates should be applicable to the new £6 franchise. Prima facie, there fore, the noble lord thought he had accomplished his object, namely, that rating and the payment of rates should be re quired if the bill passed. By the 14th and 15th of the Queen the landlord of small tenements below £8 might be rated, and yet the tenant or occupier would have a vote. Then, by the 13th and 14th of the Queen, the land lord might compound for his tenant's rates at two-thirds of the value, or if he compounded at the beginning of the year, he could compound for the rates at one-half the value. All those tenants, therefore, had a right to vote, notwithstanding they had not contributed, like their fel low citizens, to the taxation of the country. Therefore, the noble lord had immensely and materially altered the law, and was doing that which would, if it went on much further, prove absolute ruin to their representative system—namely, extending the franchise to those who were not subject to, but were entirely exempt from, the burdens which their fellow-citizens were required to pay. He believed they all agreed not to oppose the second reading of the bill, and he entirely concurred in that course. Pledges had been already given, and so repeatedly and so lemnly, by different parties in the house, by the Crown, and by Parliament, that the question would be re-opened and reconsidered. Nothing could be more unwise or unjustifi able after that, as to dally with the question, or allow it to be taken up by political demagogues. That was a reason why he supported the reading before the Easter recess; but he frankly owned that circumstances had since occurred of bo startling a character that he hardly know what he ought to think or do. (Laughter from the Ministerial benches.) Well, hod. gentlemen may laugh, but did they see the point ? They had been told on undoubted authority, that the announced intention 're-opening the subject wasmade by the First Minister of the Crown without the consent of his colleagues. Lord J. RUSSELL--That is not true. Mr. WALPOLE continued—The point was so important that he was extremely glad the noble lord interrupted him, and hoped he would have the kindness to favour the house with an explanation. The noble lord says it is not true, and that being so, he implicitly believed him, but a colleague made the statement, and since that he addressed the house and gave no explanation, so that any hon. member was warranted in believing it to bo true. He also disapproved of the conduct of the Government in dealing with the ques tion two different ways in each house of Parliament. In the other house an inquiry was going on that concerned the functions of this house, and the constituencies of the coun try, and if the bill be proceeded with and sent up to the House of Lords before that inquiry was complete, what then would be done? In that case the measure would be laid on the shelf, and that house placed in a most humiliating position. The bill would, in that case, be sent back to them as imperfect, and their appearance before the country would be somewhat silly. (Hear, hear.) The task upon which they had now entered, too, was one that should not be at tempted with a rough and hasty hand. The noble lord the Foreign Secretary had stated to the house an anecdote relating to the Reform Bill of 1832, which was not without its lesson now. When the noble lord was about to intro duce that bill, ho mentioned to the American Ambassador his doabts and anxieties as to the changes he was about to propose in the constitution which had continued so long. The American Ambassador replied "So long, and so strong!" The length and the strength of the original constitution was matter of history ; it had benefited this country for many a century. The length and the strength of the second constitution of 1832 was not much older than the youngest man among them, and the man who gave life to it was the man who was now putting the knife to its throat previous to fallowing it to its grave. (Hear, and laughter.) The length of the new constitution must d spend upon the accuracy of their information; and the only principles upon which they could proceed with any chance of satisfactory and permanent settlement of the question were those that would not place a paramount influence in the hands of the lowest, the poorest, and the most uneducated members of the community, but that would give to intelligence, virtue, and education their place in the constitution, maintain our institutions in harmony with one another, and connect pro perty with taxation, virtue, and intelligence. (Conserva tive cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that whatever might be the difficulties which beset the course of the house on the question before it, ho confessed, after listening to the speech of his right hon. friend who had just sat down, he did not think serious weight wis to be attached to the two circumstances to which he had adverted in terms so grave, and described as so perplexing his whole judgment as to leave him considerably in doubt as to wha he ought to think, or what he ought to do. (Hear, and laughter.) Now, the first of the circumstan ces , w hi c h h a d . . . _ _ so perplexed his right hon. friend was that his noble friend the member for the City of London had originally an nounced his intention 'to introduce a Reform Bill without any previous consultation with his colleagues. That diffi culty, however, had been disposed of by the declaration of his noble friend that it had no existence whatever; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might be permitted to say that even if it had not been so disposed of, it would have borne but slightly on the decision of this great constitu tional question ; because, what they had to consider was not the secret communings of the noble lord and his col. leagues, but the pledges by which the Government had con sented to become bound. Then, with respect to the second of the circumstances stated by his right hon. friend, ho found a great difficulty in the fact that another branch of the Legislature had thought fit, with the assent of the Go- vernment, to institute an examination into the numerical effect which the bill would probably have in the several constituencies of the country. The Government, in consent ing to that measure, subject to the express understandng that it should not bo, used to postpone the progress of the bill, had done what was not without precedent—though the fact might be open to argument—that was to say, they had al lowed the anxiety of others for information to admit of a particular kind of inquiry, though their own minds were already fully made up on the subject. lie confessed, then, that he was perplexed by the perplexities of the right hon. gentleman—(laughter)----the more so that he felt the force of what he urged before, that it was matter of clear and im perative duty to go forward with this bill in committee— (hear) —on the ground the question had assumed, and of the pledges which had been given and taken by all parties, from the mouth of the Sovereign, echoed back by the pro ceedings of the house. That to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was most satisfactory; but were they proceed ing to the practical consideration of the measure ? (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman said, " don't dally and play with the subject." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But there were more ways than one of playing and dallying with the subject. (Hear.) He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was speaking on the sixth, and he hoped the last night of that debate, which had arrived at that term of days which sufficed for the creation—(laughter)—without re sulting in any definite amount of progress. The right hon. gentleman did not wish for delay, but he wanted discus sion. (Hear, and laughter.) The love of discussion might be carried to excess, and one began to believe that there was some danger of its being carried to excess under circum- stances in which discussion, disconnected from any practi- r - - LoikmoN, FRIDAY EVENING, ,droczeded to a length unknown he believed, within the Parliamentary experience of any person who heard him. (Hear.) There was no example within the re collection of any gentleman in that house of a debate con tinned for six nights without a motion. Eat this was a seri ous question. (Derisive cheers from the Opposition.) Far be it from him to dispute that on such a question they could not go on for six times six nights without exhausting the power of making speeches full of importance and interest, and every way worthy of consideration. But that was crossed by another question, whether the house ought not also to consider its opportunities of action. Six nights ex hausted something like the eighth part of the time available for the discussion of such a measure in a whole session : and this discussion had proceeded thus far without the elimination of one definite principle by which it was to be guided. (Cheers, and cries of No.) They ascertained by it the opinion of individual members, but not the opinion of the house, and he put it to the house whether free discus sion should be pursued without the enunciation of principles by which a majority of the house was to be bound. (Cheers.) Now, he concurred with his right hon. friend that, apart from the views they might take on the principles embodied in the bill, it had become matter of public interest and pub lic necessity that the house should seriously and practically dispose of it. He thought he could claim some merit for sincerely entertaining that desire. (Laughter from the Opposition.) He thought he might do so, because when hon. gentlemen who saw fit to receive that claim with sneers were members of a Government which introduced a Reform Bill, though he disapproved of that bill, he never theless declined to vote with his noble friend, and the same motives he was entitled to urge on others, namely, a sense of the paramount prudence—not to say the duty—of re lieving the question from the condition in which it is placed, and which could only raise doubts in the public mind as to the value of the pledges made by publie men. (Prolonged cheers and counter-cheers.) Well, with respect to the bill before them, he would draw a distinction between different classes of objections. He did not follOw his right hon. friend with his remarks on the county franchise, unless to say that his estimate of an increase of 300,000 was much more than double what they (the Government) believe to be probable. (Hear.) He would not follow him either into the disfranchisement of seats, for though doubtless a sub ject of considerable importance, it occupied only a secon dary place in the general question, and would be best con sidered in committee. He would, however, remark that the right hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire said, in reference to that subject, that the disfranchisement ought to proceed much further than the Government had shown themselves inclined to propose. Sir E. L. BULWER—No. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII, then, he would transfer the remark to the hon. member for Salford, for it was only another way of saying that the Go vernment ought to have introduced a bill which they knew would have no chance of passing. And with respect to what were termed " fancy franchises," such as those of graduates, savings banks, and others, which were, perhaps, very good in themselves, he would only say that being novel, they were difficult, and would be productive el minute and insignificant results. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government could not be supposed to enter tain an objection to fancy franchises, as a largo number of the present Cabinet were the men who six years ago made a proposal of them to Parliament. The question again of a rating, or a voter's franchise, could not be closed by that debate. The great opposition to the bill indeed was founded upon the £6 franchise. The objection taken to that main feature of the bill was, that a £6 franchise would introduce an immense class into the electoral body, who were not in quantity but in quality unfit for the exercise of the fran chise, and would be capable, by their numbers of overweigh ing and overwhelming other classes in the country. (Opposition cheers.) %% as that true or not ? (Hear.) He would, in the first place take the argument of his right hon. friend as to the nature and quality of the new addition to the constituency. He did not admit that the working men considered as individuals, were less worthy of the suffrage than other classes. (Cheers.) He did not admit the truth of those charges of corruption which had been made against them as a class. (Hear, hear.) He did not believe that the working men as a class were disposed to tax their neighbours and exempt themselves. (Cheers.) He did not believe that schemes of Socialism, Communism, Republi canism, or any other schemes at variance with the laws of the country, were prevalent among them. (Hear, hear.) He granted that they might corrupt the working classes of the country if they gave them a monopoly of power. (Opposition cheers.) They were, he contended, not cor rupt at present, and the question was whether this bill would give such an overwhelming amount of political power as would tend to corrupt them in future. Was, then, the addition of that class who lived in houses under £lO a-year rental and £6, likely to give them such a predomi nance ? He, for one, agreed in the opinion that they would not be doing their duty on this question, if they merely passed something called a Reform Bill, without taking care that it was a genuine and real measure of Re form. They were bound, in dealing with the question, to take care the measure was such as promised something like permanence, in the sense in which any simple man would ordinarily use that term. He thought that every one would admit that in legislating on the subject it was extremely desirable to deal with it fairly, and thus get rid of the sub sequent agitation which might arise, if they reduced the measure to the smallest modicum of Reform they could de vise. (Hear, hear.) They were bound, he contended, is admitting the working classes, to take care that the number should not be as small as possible, but that it should be so large as to insure the confidence of those not admitted, in the justice and fair dealing of the Legislature. Therefore, he said, the 'mere extension of tho franchise was not suffi cient, and the question then came whether the addition pro posed by the bill was a reasonable or an unreasonable aug mentation of the constituency, either as regarded quantity or quality. He said that, looking to the number of inde pendent and educated working men who would be admitted by this bill, and speaking of quality as well as quantity, the quality of those who would be admitted if the bill passed was good enough for the exercise of the privilege it was pro posed to give them. (Hear, and a cry of " Universal Suf frage," from Lord Lovaine.) He begged the noble lord'■ pardon. He was not speaking of universal suffrage. If they admitted the principle of selection, he did not know where to stop. They did not make any selection in the case of the £lO constituency, and he did not think that small shopkeepers were always wise men—always contented men—always independent men. (Cheers.) He went further, and doubted, even if they were to raise the suffrage to £2O, that they would always be able to find those qualities. Would the house bear with him while ho endeavoured to state to them the views_ at which the Government had arrived as to the amount of change which would be introduced into the constituencies by this bill. He confined himself entii ely to cities and bo roughs, because he thought if they got to a satisfactory un derstanding on that point there could be little difference on others. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter from the Oppo • sition.) He was afraid, from the manner in which that statement had been received by hon. gentlemen opposite, that he had been a little too sanguine in his calculations. (Hear, hear.) But he did think that if they settled the question of the boroughs there might be some probability of arriving at a fair conclusion on the general question. Now, what was the number which would be admitted to the fran chise by the bill as it now stood ? Before it was introduced the Government used the best means in their power to get at the facts. The instruments they had to use for that Fir pose were certainly not perfect, but the information was honestly collected so far as was in their power, and since the bill had been under discussion, the Government had used every means at their disposal to render it as complete and accurate as possible, and to arrive at a reasonable amount of certainty as to the augmentation of the constitu ency which would be made by the bill in the cities and towns of this country. Now what was the amount ? It could not possibly exceed 200,000 in any case. He thought it would, in all probability, fall short of 150,000. He did not, therefore, see anything in the measure to justify the comparisons made that evening between the institutions of this country and those of America. (Hear.) Had the people of England been infected by thac., disease ? Were they likely to hear America held up as a pattern ? (Cheers.) lie thought he understood that cheer. (Hear.) The meaning of it aught be that perhaps a solitary gentle man might have a strong sympathy with America, but he did not speak of a solitary individual, but of the tone and temper that pervaded English society. He must tell hon. gentlemen who cheered that they did injustice to this country. It would be a miserable day for England when she thought fit to adopt America for a model. (Conserva tive cheers.) It was England that had to teach much to America, and Americans had much to learn from England. (Hear, hear.) This bill did not give that predominance to the working classes which was supposed. It proposed to invest one in every 25 working men with:the suffrage, but even that and much more in that direction would take ge nerations to make England like America. But it was the social state of America, and not its political institutions, that was the cause of much that was blameable. The social state of this country was very different, and it was not for us to travel across the Atlantic to be taught on these sub jects. Well then, was it, or was it not, the case that, so far as vague assertions could be brought to the test of facts and figures, the whole case to show that the working men were about to have the lion's share, had broken down. (An hon. member, " No.") He was certain that was not the meaning of the right hon, gentleman the member for Hert fordshire when he spoke of the swamping of the constitu tion about to follow this bill. They were not about to adopt the A►xerican system, and even with extended suffrage they would probably see the monarchy and institutions of the country flourish with the free assent of the people. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He hoped the house would assent to the second reading of this bill. For himself he would say, that any Government that would consent to withdraw the bill would cover itself with irretrievable disgrace. (Hear, hear.) There was no such intention on the part of the Government. His right hon. friend (Sir E. B. Lytton) had it in his own power to move the rejection of the bill, and it would be for the House of Commons, if it so willed it, to assent to the motion for the rejection of the measure. But let them not attempt—and in the attempt make legislation difficult by means of delay—to get rid of this bill. He owned that he could not see, in the lengthened debate which they had had, that they had found anything at all proportionate to the value of time consumed. Remembering all the difficulties cal proposition, ~~~~a and risk before them, there was still no risk in his opinion so great as that of dallying with this great and vital ques tion; for, by pursuing such a course their conduct would be liable to such interpretations that they would be endan• gerir.g• the permanent institutions of the country, and destroyiiag their own capacity for preserving that confidence and aqacluneat which for many generations the House of Commons, by its labours and its services, had earned at the hands of the people of England. (Cheers.) Mr. COLLINS rose amidst cries of "Divide." He de nied that there had been any effort on his (the Conserva tive) side of the house to delay the measure by protracted discussion, for the great majority of the speeches on the bill had come from the other side of the house. lie objected to the bill that it did not afford even a satisfactory basis for a thorough measure of Reform. If it were passed, he hoped it would settle the question for at least fifteen years to come, and if this was to be the case, he would cordially assist in supporting it, when suitably amended ; but if not, he thought the best thing they could do would be to get rid of it altogether. The question was then put, and the bill was read a second time without a division, amidst loud and protracted cheering. THE COMMITTEE. Lord J. RUSSELL—A good deg !of if:lenity has been felt with regard to business of an important character which has beenpostponed in consequence of the protracted debate on this bill, and on that account it might be incon venient to the house if we were now to propose to go into committee upon it. Besides, we should have that commit tee interrupted almost immediately by the Whitsuntide holidays. For these reasons I propose that the bill be committed on Monday, the 4th of June. (Loud cheers and laughter by the Opposition.) Mr. MACKINNON gave notice of his intention, on going into a committee of the whole house on the Reform Bill, to move the following resolution :—" That, in order to obtain a safe and effective reform, it would be inexpe dient and unjust to proceed further with the proposed le gislative measure for the representation of the people until the house has before it the results of the census authorised by the bill now under its consideration." In reply to several questions, which the confusion pre veiling owing to the number of members leaving the house rendered almost inaudible, Mr. CARDWELL stated that it was not intended to take the second reading on the Irish Bill till the English Bill had passed through committee. REFRESHAIENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL. Mr. LAING stated that this bill would be taken the first thing on Monday next. BANK OF IRELAND BILL. This bill passed through committee. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS JURISDICTION BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. NUISANCES REMOVAL. Mr. LOWE obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend tho acts for the removal of nuisances and the prevention of dis eases, lie stated, in reply to a question, that the measure would make considerable changes with respect to the officers at present charged with carrying out the acts now in force. SPIRITS. Mr. LAING moved " That the house resolve into a com mittee of the whole house, to move for leave to bring in a bill to reduce into one Act and to amend the Excise regu lations relating to the distilling, rectifying, and dealing in spirits." The house accordingly resolved itself into committee, leave was given, and the bill brought in. The other business on the paper having been disposed of, the house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock, LAW INTELLIGENCE.—May 3. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. , (Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr, Baron Channell and a Common Jury.) DOVER v. RICIIARDSON.-BREACII OF PROMISE AND SEDUCTION. This was an action to recover compensation for a breach of promise of marriage. The defendant pleaded that he did not promise as alleged. Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. R. Scott were coun sel for the plaintiff; Mr. Price appeared for the de fendant. Mr. E. James, in stating the case to the jury, said it was an action to recover damages under painful and distressing circumstances, The plaintiff was the daughter of a very respectable tradesman —a currier and leather-seller, who carried on busi ness before his death at Temple Sowerby, in West moreland, and the defendant was a farmer of the same neighbourhood, but he had left for New Zea land. He was, however, a person of considerable property, and was capable of making recompense so far as money was concerned. The plaintiff was about 16 years of age when she was introduced to the defendant at a ball in the neighbourhood in the latter part of 1854. The defendant, who is now about 27 years of age, became enamoured of her, paid his attentions to her, and was accepted as her suitor. In 1859 the defendant was sent by his friends to study at the Cirencester Agricultural College, and during his stay there he corresponded with the plaintiff in the most affectionate terms. It turned out that the defendant had taken advantage of the confidence reposed in him, and had seduced the plaintiff, who was confined on the 14th of last April. Instead of making her his wife, as he ought to have done, he had left the country for New Zea land, leaving to the plaintiff the necessity of coming into a court of law to enforce pecuniary compensa tion. His conditct had been most heartless and cruel. He had ruined the plaintiff, deprived her of the society and companionship of her friends, and had left her in a helpless condition, with the finger of scorn pointed at her, to maintain het sel and child. It was a case in which he hoped they would give substantial damages. The learned counsel then called the following wit nesses : Annie Dover deposed—l am sister of the plain tiff, and reside with my mother at Temple Sowerby. My father was a currier and leather merchant there. He died about seven or eight years ago. My mother carried on the business till about two years since, when my brother took it, and is now carrying it on. I know the defendant. His parents live at Cul gaith, about two miles from Temple Sowerby. The defendant was in the habit of frequently visiting my sister at my mother's house. He has visited there about three years. He paid marked atten tion to my sister, and he was received by the family as engaged to my sister. I have seen them together at friends' houses. The defendant left Culgaith about a year ago to go to the Agricultural College, at Cirencester. He returned in August last year for the holidays, and visited my sister at my mother's house. My sister is now about 21 years of age. The defendant is about five years older. Great pre parations were made for my sister's marriage, such as wearing apparel and articles of domestic use. Cross -examined—My mother is alive. Ido not know the defendant's mother to speak to her. My sister was never introduced to his mother. My married sister lives apart from her husband with my mother and the family. The defendant visited my sister at various times, sometimes in the day time and at others in the evening. The defendant and my sister were often left sitting up after the family had retired to rest. I think my mother gave instructions for this action. I have never heard my sister say she would have no action brought, and would have nothing to do with it. I have never heard her say she did not wish any inquiry to take place, or anything of that kind. Re-examined—l cannot say if they sat up till a late hour. My sister was confined of a girl on the 14th of April last. My mother is in attendance on her. Mrs. Elizabeth Ward deposed—l am sister of the plaintiff. I do not live with my husband from difficulties into which he has got. That has left me without support, and I am 'living with my mother. I lived with my mother in 1859. The defendant was then in the habit of visiting my sister as her future husband. Preparations in dress and domestic articles were made by the plaintiff out of her own pocket money. My sister was confined on the 14th of April. The infant is alive. The de fendant returned from the college at the end of last year. He called and saw my sister twice. I saw no alteration in his manner towards the plain tiff. Her appearance at that time was very guarded, and I don't think it was perceptible. We had ob served her state before the end of the year, and came to the opinion that she was in the family way. I can't say that she ever told us she was so. I don't think I have seen the defendant present when she was preparing her dresses. Cross-examined—It was various under garments, such as petticoats. Mr. Price—Any crinoline ? (Laughter.) Witness--I can't say. The Judge—lt is to be got so cheap in London that I should not think it was worth the trouble of making. (Renewed laughter.) Witness—No house was taken for them to live in. My mother's sister was engaged to attend upon the plaintiff during her confinement. Mr. Joseph Hutchinson deposed-1 am a miller, residing at Acorn Bank Mill, Temple Sowerby. I have known the plaintiff and her family for some years. Her father was in a large way of business, and he moved in a respectable sphere. I know the defendant and his mother. They are persons of pro perty. In June, 1859, the defendant was at my house. I had observed that he paid attentions to the plaintiff. I said to him on one occasion as we were walking along, " William, I hope your intentions are . pure with regard to Miss Dover ;" he said, " They arc, and I intend to make her my wife." In consequence of what 1 had heard from the family I saw him on the 10th of March last. It was notorious then that she was in the family way ; her mother requested me to see defendant. I told him he must be perfectly aware what I called to see him about. He said he was not. I said " You are perfectly aware of Miss Dover's state." He replied, " I am— I am very sorry for it." I expressed io him that " I hoped he would Make her amends." He said he was very sorry he was not prepared to carry out the engagement, as he was going to leave for New Zea land. i said, "I am very sorry to hear it," and he replied that he was extremely sorry that it had come to that, and that he could not carry out. the engagement. I told him he was possessed of suffi• eient means to keep a wife in a respectable manner, as I understood he was left £2,000 by his father. He said that was not the case. I last saw him about a month ago. He has left hiii residence. Cross-examined-1 did not tell Mrs. Ward that the defendant said his intentions were pure, and that he intended to marry the plaintiff. I informed her of his intention to leave England for New Zealand. I was not asked by the plaintiff's mother to ascer tain the defendant's intentions previous to June, 1859. The plaintiff and defendant were friends of mine, and that is the reason why I asked him what were his intentions towards the plaintiff. Ido not know if his mother has only £5O a year to live on. I do not know anything about their circumstances. The family live in a respectable manner, in one house—the mother and three sisters. The elder brother has a farm of his own. Ido not know that he went to the Cirencester College to prepare him self for settling in New Zealand. I never hoard before the 10th March that he intended to go to Australia. lam indebted upwards of £4OO to the plaintiff's brother, not to the mother. The money was lent to me at different times. I have been sold up. I was a miller at Acorn Mill. I did not go to the plaintiff's at torn ey and offer nay evidence. He came to me about two months ago. I have seen the plaintiff since March. I never heard her say she did not wish the action to be brought or anything of the kind. I did not ask the defendant for £5O last winter and he refused me. I never applied to him or any of the family to lend me money. There is an account between me and the brother. He does not dispute owing me anything. An admission was put in stating that the defen dant is possessed of £1,400. The following letters were put in and read. They were in pink-tinged envelopes : " Alma-lodge, Cirencester, Aug. 24. " Dear Sarah,—l have no doubt you will be look ing for some communication from me according to promise. I arrived all right here last night, too late to catch the post. I hope that you are better in health than when I last saw you and not quite brokenhearted. It is always a task for me to say good-bye; but I say it, and get away as soon as possible. I saw the tear glisten in your eye at parting with you, and w ou ld g l a dl y h ave staye d to kiss it away, bat that would only have made mat ters worse. The time will soon pass that I have to stay here, and then there is the pleasure of looking forward to the time when we shall meet again. Take care of yourself. I cannot tell you anything about the place yet, as I have not had time to look round. When you write address as above. Excuse this short scribble, and accept with it, dear Sarah, the kind love of yours ever, " W. A. It." The letter bore the post mark of 1859. The second letter was dated " Wednesday Evening. " Dear Sarah,—l was extremely sorry when I received your last. I hope to Heaven that it is not as you predict. You seem to say that you suspected it before I left home. Why did you not mention it then ? I am ; however, inclined to think that it cannot be as you say, or you would have had con clusive evidence of it before this time. In the meantime, however, keep up your heart, and do not despair ; everything will be well yet. lam much obliged to you for remembering my birthday. I had forgotten about it myself. I suppose you would be at the flower show at Penrith. I under stand it was very wet and disagreeable." The letter concluded— " However, it is not long till Christmas, when I hope to find you all right and hearty. Never fret, it will do no good. It is no use to meet trouble half way. It is too soon when it comes. I shall expect to know when you write again. Consume this, as I have done yours, to avoid any detection ; and accept the sincere love of your's ever, " W. A. RICHARDSON." This letter bore the post mark of Sept. 21, 1859. This was the plaintiff's case. The defendant called no witnesce , .. Mr. James summed up the !_;1,1,ill L111 . '6 case, asking the jury to give exe•-p try damages. Mr. Price addre,sed the jury in mitigation of damages. 1 - le denied theie was such a contract of marriage between th e p ar ti es as ent i t l e d the plain tiff to recover damages. She was fully aware of the consequences that must result from the sedvc tion, and it was unfair to introduce it into this action in order to catch a verdict and swell the amount of damages. An action might have been brought for the seduction, in which case the plain tiff must have been called and examined, when the facts of the case would have been thoroughly sifted. The plaintiff, he contended, had not made out the contract of marriage; and with regard to the seduc tion the plaintiff had other remedies. Mr. Baron Channell summed up. The only ques tion for the jury was, whether the defendant had contracted to marry the plaintiff. The defendant denied that he had made such contract. This was an action in which it was not expected that definite evidence of the contract could be given in all cases, but it must depend on the circumstances surround ing the case. Promises of this kind were most likely made when the parties were alone, but if they unequivocally conducted themselves so as to justify their relatives and friends in coining to the conclu sion that they were engaged, the jury would be justified in ac ti ng on suc h ev id ence, an d in giving such damages as they thought would meet the cir cumstances of the case. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff damages £350. COURT OF DIVORCE, MAY 3. Before Sir Cresswell Cresswell, Mr. Justice Hill, Mr. Justice Willes, and a Special Jury) CALLWELL V. CALLWELL AND KENNEDY. Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Burke appeared for the corespondent; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., for the wife. Damages were laid at £3,000. This was a petition for a dissolution of marriage, by Mr. Wm. Callwell, on the ground of his wife's adultery with Wm. Kennedy. The respondent and co-respondent had put in answers denying the adul tery, and on this issue had been joined. The peti tioner was a gentleman of station and respectabi lity, residing for some time in London, having, however, his permanent residence in Kildare, Ire land. He married on the 16th March, 1850, a lady named Elizabeth Martin, and up to June, 1858, no thing occurred to disturb the harmony of the union. There were three daughte rs an d one son, the result of the marriage ; but since the separation, a child had been born in November. The co-respondent, was a man of property, and a neighbour of Mr. Callwell's, and they used to hunt and shoot to gether, and were on very intimate terms. Towards the end of May, 1858, the petitioner was called to London by business, and he took his w ife with him as far as Dublin, where he left her on a visit to her aunt, Mrs. Bush, during his temporary absence. His business was nearly accomplished, and he was meditating a return to Dublin, when he received a note from his wife, dated the 6th of June, and stat ing that there was no necessity for him to come over on the following Monday, as she was not ready to leave Dublin on that day. The very next morn ing he received another letter, dated the 7th of June, saying, "Do not leave London until you have another line from me." Mr. Callwell subse quently ascertained that, shortly before the first letter was written, his wife had received a telegra phic message from Mr, Kennedy, to the effect that she waa not to leave Dublin until she heard from him. It appeared that Mrs. Callwell told her aunt she had received a letter from Mr. Ken nedy, also stat e d s h e was a ware she had acted im prudently, and put herself in his power, but she would go over to London, and set matters all right with her husband. She afterwards said she had received another letter from Kennedy, and there fore was determined to go over to Londo n a t once. This, however, was only to blind her aunt as to her real intentions. Mrs. Callwell then left Dublin and arrived in London on the Bth June, where sh e was joined by Kennedy, who accompanied her to Dover the same night. After sleeping together at Dover they crossed the Channel and went on to Paris, but she had previously written the following note to her husband—" lam gone, William, for ever. I never dared to tell you all my deceit and treachery. Curse me, for you w a ll may do so. lam a curse to all belonging to me. You will be better without such a miserable wretch—farewell." The next that was heard of her was that she had written a letter from Munich to her husband's brother, Mr. Henry Callwell, who had married her sister, in which she expressed the agony and distress of mind under which she was labouring, and the impossibility of continu ing to live in such a state of sin. Mr. Henry Call well thereupon went over to the Continent, and saw the respondent, who was there living as the wife of Mr. Kennedy. The result of his charitable visit was, that he induced her to leave Kennedy an d return to England. Upon her arrival she took up her resi dence at Mr. Henry Callwell's house, at Norwood, where a child was born, but en the 17th December she went to live in York-street, Portman-square, and there, it appeared, s h e was in the habit of re ceiving visits from the corespondent, some of them beginning at seven o'clock iu the morning, and not ending before 12 o'clock at night. The evidence produced completely established the case of the petitioner. The Jury found that Mrs. Callwell had been guilty • of adultery with Mr. Kennedy, and gave £3,000 damages. Their Lordships suspend:A the decree of dissolu tion, in order to allow an application to be made with regard to the settlements, and also as to the disposition of the sum awarded as damages. MAY 4, POLICE IN.TELLIG_E2VVE—Lray 3. MA RLE OROUGH-STREET.—THE EXTRAOR DINARY AND EXTENSIVE JEWEL ROBBERIES.—Jas. Pearce, 23, lapidary, and Emily Lawrence, who had been cohabitinr,- together as man and wife, at 5, Albion-grove, Stoke Newi ng t on, were c h arge d be fore Mr. Beadon, on remand, with stealing, at 5, Hanover.square, a diamond locker, of the value of 2,000 guineas, the property of Mr. Harry Emma nuel, diamond merchant, and on suspicion of steal ing four diamond and otherwise jewelled bracelets, of the value of £6OO, the property of Messrs. Hunt and Roskell, from their show-rooms in New Bond street. The female prisoner is 21 years of age, rather good looking, and is enceinte. Mr. Lewis, of Ely-place, appeared for Mr. Em manuel; and Mr. Humphrey, jun., for Messrs. Hunt and Roskell. Mr. EdWin Streeter, manager at Mr. Emmanuel's, further deposed—The rest of the jewellery was placed in the strong room soon after the prisoners left, and the key given to me, which I deposited in an iron chest of which I kept the key. The next morning I gave the key of the strong room to the witness Parmacott. The male prisoner when he came wore a pin in his shirt-breast without the stone, which he spoke of as having lost. I have since sten the pin, shown to me by an officer. Mr. John Parmacott—On the morning of the 4th of January I might have received the key as stated —it is generally done. On Mr. Young asking for the diamond locket, search was made, and it was missed. Saint, 183 11, had been taking care of the house, 7, Portland-place, for the owner, no such person as a Mr. Bain living there, nor either of the prisoners at any time or since January last. Mr. Beard said, as there was to be no further evidence that day, he bad an application to make on behalf the prisoners. The police had taken pos session of the residence of • his clients, and the fur niture, but hoped they would vacate the place, and that his worship would give an order to that effect, because the prisoners, being unconvicted, police possession of the premises was clearly illegal. Mr. Beadon said, in reply, that the police were justified in doing as they did. Robberies to an im mense amount were charged against the prisoners, and the police, as in all such eases, had an undoubted right to take possession of all property found in their possession until settlement of the cases on trial or otherwise. Mr. Beard said there were letters and papers in his clients' house. Inspector Whicher said there was nothing of the sort, and as regarded the property, he held posses sion of it ; on the part of the police, on the grounds that it might pro ve t o b e th e proceeds, by purchase, of property which had been plundered. Mr. Beadon said he should make no order, and the police had acted discreetly. The prisoners being known by many aliases, were again remanded. MARYLEBONE. CHARGE OF UTTERING A FORGED £l,OOO NOTE.—A female of short stature, about 40 years of age, who at the station house gave the name of Charlotte Nash, but who has also described herself as Lady Charlotte Nash, and Charlotte Hunter Nash, was brought up on remand (having been apprehended by Inspector Whicher, detective of the A division), and placed at the bar before Mr. Hammill, on the charge of uttering a promissory note of £l,OOO, signed " Samuel Twy ford, Trotton-house," and purporting to have been signed by Mr. Samuel Twyford, late one of the magistrates of Bow-street Police-court, with intent to defraud Mr. Horace John Semple, solicitor, of 21, Duke-street, Manchester-square. Mr. Horace Semple now stated, on being sworn, that he was requested to make some inquiries about the promissory note, and that on the 31st of March last, he called on the prisoner, who was residing at 5, Tsvyford's-buildings, Lincoln's Inn-fields. Upon seeing her he observed that he called about the £l,OOO promissory note, on which it appeared that there was £5OO remaining due. (The note was produced. The writing on it was as follows :—" I promise to pay to my own order the sum of £l,OOO by the following instalments—Xsoo on the Ist day 9f June, 1859, and the remaining £5OO on the Ist of June, 1860, value received.—Signed, SAMUEL TIVYF. , RD.") He told her that he had applied for the money due. She said that she could not act without her husband's consent to the endorsement; that he was in ill-health, and that she could not then consult him about it. He then left. On the Monday following she called upon him (witness). She said that she had been talking to her husband about the bill, and that he had consented to endorse it. He (witness) had not at that time seen the bill, but only a copy of it. He told her that he should require to see the bill, and to make some inquiry about the authenticity of the handwriting. She observed that she had plenty of letters from Mr. Twyford, which he could compare with the bill, and he told her to bring the bill. Mr. Hammill—Did she leave you any letters ? Witness—Not at that time. In a day or two she brought the bill with some letters purporting to be in the handwriting of Mr. Twyford. The bill had the signature " Samuel Twyford," and on the back of it it was receipted with the name of " Charlotte Hunter." She also brought some letters, purport ing to be signed by Mr. Samuel Twyford, and dated " Brighton, Feb. 10, 1860." Mr. Hammill—Was there any envelope with them ? Witness—She brought them in a blank en velope. I cannot swear to her handwriting. Mr. Hammill—Did she say how she came by the note ? Witness—She said that Mr. Twyford and her mother were related, and that after her mother's death he made a communication to her that he had a sum of £l,OOO of her mother's, arising from a settlement of family matters, and that he gave her the note in discharge of the £l,OOO, of which she would have known nothing but through that in formation which Mr. Twyford had voluntarily given her. She left the letter s an d t h e b ill w i th me, and remarked that they knew the handwriting of Mr. Twyford at Bow-street, and she then said, " You can go there with them, or to Mr. lanes, Whitehall, who is his solicitor," Mr. Hammill—Did you go to Bow-street ? Witness—l did, and I saw Mr. BurnaV, to whom I showed the bill and the letters, when he observed that they were forgeries. Mr. Hammill—What have you to say to the charge? Prisoner—l did not know that it was a forged promissory note. I know I hare told a great many lies. The prisoner was next charged with uttering two forged promissory notes of £5OO each, and VMS remanded. LADvERTIsEmENT.]—Amon g the numerous extraordi nary cures, without medicine, of Indigestion (Dyspepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious and Liver com plaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption and Debility, effected by Du Barry's delicious Health Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, the following are not the least remarkable : Cure No. 47,121.—" Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, of Nazing Vicarage, Waltham-cross, Herts ; a cure of extreme ner vousness, indigestion, gathering, low spirits, and nervous fancies." Cure No. 48,814.—" Miss Elizabeth Yeoman, Gateacre, near Liverpool : cure of ten years' dyspepsia and all the horrors of nervous irritability." Cure 3,9o6—Thir teen years' cough, indigestion and general debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Revalenta Arabica Food. Athol-street, Perth. James Porter. Cure No. 58,116, Mrs. Holze, aged 107 years, of dyspepsia (indiges tion), debility, irritability and nervousness which had tormented her for seventy years. Cure No. 46,814, Mr. Samuel Laxton, Leicester, of two years' diarrhcea. In tins, at Is. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 121.; 121 b., 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Abbis, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, Oxford street; 330 and 451, Strand - ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate street ; 85, Tottenham -court-road. Also at Dublin. r3ewley :and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Cc.; at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp anr Scott am v to ; n at k.an d oI York R d son UT aimes, Blanchard, and , Co d at;Soutk ' BIRTHS. McDouGALL.—On the 3d inst., at Blackheath, the wife of , I N o l f c a D s o o u i g l. all, Esq., R.N., Admiralty Surveyor, MONTAGIS.—On the 20th ult., at Shcerness, the wife of Lieut.-Col. Montagu, It.E., of a son. MARRIAGES. MAnLING—AnnAnAm.—On the 2d inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, William Henry, e ld est son of Samuel S. Marling, Esq., of Stanley- park, Gloucestershire, to Mary Emily, elder daughter o f J o h n Abraham, Esq., of Preston, Lancashire. PIGOTT—GRANVILLE.—On the Ist inst., at Havant, Cap tain William Pigott, of the Trinity House, to GeoTgiana Frances, the eldest daughter of the late George B. Gran ville, Esq., of Chester. DEATHS. BROWN.—On the 30th ult., at Bath, Richard W. Brown, Esq., aged 71. DOWLING,—On the Ist inst., at Abbey Wood, Kent, Richard H. Dowling, Esq., aged 74. GLovEn.—On the let inst., at Potlock House, Derbyshire, John J. Glover, Esq., aged 69. Moser.LY.—At Olverstone Vicarage, Mary, the daughter of Henry Moseley, Canon of Bristol. Z,ONDON : Printed a.nd Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The 'Stn Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Friday, May 4, 1860. '~~