The Sun. — London, England, 1861-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY,) ROYAL ASSENTS. The royal assent was given by commission to the follow ing bills :—Boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland) Act Amendment, Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland), Inclosu re (NO. 2) Local Government, Supple mental Transfers of Stocks and Annuities, Poor Assess mants(Scotland),London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance, Queensland Government, Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels, Chatham Dockyard Enlargement, Tylde Water, Blackburn Water, Treak, Ancholm, and Grimsby Rail way ; Stockton and Darlington Railway (Capital), Leven and East of Fife Railway Companies (Amalgamation, &c.), Leven and East of Fife Railways (Extension &c.), Airdale Drainage; Londonderry and Loch Swelly Rail.. way,; Swanna Vale Railway, Dumfries, Lochmaben; and Lockerby Junction Railway, Hammersmith, Padding ton, and City Junction, Barnsley Coal Railway, Lon don !and North Western, Lancaster and Carlisle, and Caledonian Railways ; Marlborough Railway, Rathkeale and Newcastle Junction Railway, South Yorkshire Railway (Keadley Extension), Wigan Gas Meter and Fitting Com pany, Waveney Valley Railway,Dublin Corporation Water, Bolton Corporation, Brighton, Uckfield, and Tunbridge Wells Railway; Stockport,Timperley, and Altrincham June. Railway; Harwich Police and Improvement, Kinross-shire Railway, Eastern Counties and Saffron Walden Railway, Conway and Llanrwrt Railway, Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Railway, Bishop Stortford, Dunmow, and Braintree Railway, Cleveland Railway, Forest of Dean Central Rail way, Hatfield Chase Warping and Improvement, Inverness and Perth Junction Railway, Ludlow and Clee Hill Rail way, Mersey Docks and Hartom Board, Much Wen lock, &c., Railway,;,Salisbury and Dorset Junction, South- Eastern Railway (Folkestone Harbour, &c.), Vale of Clwyd Railway, Ware, Hadham, and Buntingford Railway, Ramsey Railway, Alva Railway, North London Railway (branch to City), Coleford, Monmouth, Usk, and Ponty pool Railway. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack apt five o'clock. POLAND. Lord RAVENSWORTII presented a petition, which he had not been able to present on the night of Lord Har rowby's motion in consequence of illness. IHE DUCHY OF MODENA. The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to move that anhuro ble address be presented to her Majesty for copies or extracts of any despatches relating to the affairs of the duchy of Mo dena from her Majesty's Minister accredited to the Courts of Central Italy during the years 1855, 1856, 1857, and 1858. Re added to his motion a similar motion for papers relat ing to the Duchy of Cerrara. He was not in the least pre pared, when he gave notice of his intention to make this motion some time since, for the scene which followed. He had considered it his duty to contradict the grave accusa tions made against the Duke of Modena by Mr. Gladstone, and to inform the right hon. gentleman's colleagues that he was prepared with such a contradiction. He had since been ,in correspondence with Mr. Gladstone, and he believed that gentleman had been made to believe the truth of what he (the Marquis of Normanby) had said. He would .first read to their lordships the correspondence between himself and Mr. Gladstone. This he proceeded to do. His first letter consisted of a distinct denial on evidence which he gave of the statement adopted by Mr. Gladstone with reference to an alleged execution in Modena. Mr. Gladstone replied that he could not admit that he had done wrong. He had not made a single assertion not authorised by documents which had been before the public for two years, and the authenticity of which had never been questioned. He added that he thought the practice of answering in one house statements made in another was not desirable. Lord Normanby, in answering this, said the question was whether a Minister of the Crown should allow an erroneous statement of his which had gone forth to Europe to remain uncontradicted. He then read the correspondence which had passed between himself and ,Mr. Gladstone on the subject, and remarked that as that gentleman had refused to retract the charge he hoped the papers would be produced, in order that the case might be fairly placed before the country. Lord WODEHOUSE said he thought he was entitled to ask whether it was convenient, when a member of one house made a particular statement, a charge affecting his veracity should be made against him in another house of which he was not a member. (Hear, hear.) He could conceive that it was a great deal more convenient to those who brought the accusation that the party accused should not have the opportunity of answering it. Every one of these statements referred to a speech made in the other house some months ago ; and, in point of strict order, it was not open for the members of one house to comment on the speech of a mem ber of the other house. Having said that, he should not enter into the case, but should leave it in Mr. Gladstone's hands. What he wanted to hear the noble marquis say was whether those documents were forgeries or not. Those do cuments were published in Modena, and purported to be copies of documents found in the archives. some were published so long ago as 1859, and others in 1860, and they must be taken as uncontradicted at all events. The noble marquis spoke of them as being stolen private letters. They were letters which the Duke of Modena wrote. His noble friend said they were not edicts. That was what was com plained of—that he constantly interfered with the adminis tration of the law, and that he did so, not by edicts, but by letters to his ministers. The particular statement with re gard to the man named Granaij was only one of a great many statements, but the noble marquis said nothing of the others. Mr. Gladstone admitted that he was in error in stating that Granaij was executed,but he still contended that the law which was made applicable to him was an ex post foeto law, and on examining further documents he found a confirmation of what he had stated with regard to this par ticular instance. It appeared that there was established at Carrara a state of siege, which came to an end on the 13th Dec., 1854. There was a military commission established in 1357, which was empowered to judge of a variety of crimes— one of them being insults by words against the military au thorities ; another order said that the law of capital punish ment should be applicable to persons under eighteen years of age ; and another made the military commission applicable to all crimes committed since the state of siege was commenced. The order with regard to Granaij was dated the 27th August, 1855. It was perfectly possible for crimes committed between December, 1854, and August, 1855, to be judged by an ex post facto law, and it was im possible to draw any other inference from the document than that this was so. Then, from these documents it ap peared that the Duke of Modena wrote a letter to one of his ministers in which he complained of the Tribunal of Ap peal, who, he said, made themselves the advocates instead of the judges of criminals. There was another point to which the noble marquis alluded ; he said there was a cer tain house of detention, a sort of reformatory where pri soners were taught useful trades; and in one of these let ters the Duke of Modena, alluding to the prisoners who were under criminal condemnation—about 254 altogether— said, with regard to one-third of these, in consequence of the mildness of the sentence, they should not be restored to society until they had undergone a further imprisonment in the reformatory. (Hear.) The noble marquis said only five prisoners were execu t e d d ur i n g the reign of the Duke of Modena. Now he begged their lordships to observe that the gravamen Cl Mr. Gladstone's charge against the Duke of Modena was not cruelty, but that his government was arbitrary, that there was no fixed law, and that he revised and increased in severity the s entence s of the judges. The he duke said he nauseated, that was turned quite sick, be cause criminals were not punis h ed severe ly enough, and he th rea tened the judges with dismissal if theyoitdedid for oot having severer punishments. One judge was di s missed three prisoners for - what w as called " pretended g want o f proof." His noble friend was not satisfied with defending the Duke of Modena, but he called him (Lord Wodehouse) to task about General Pinelli, and asked to why he had been sen t back to Naples. He must dec l i ne be responsible e ither for that appointment, or any other ointment of the Italian Government. (Rear.) Then his noble friend complained of a ll aPP rep orts which were not in accordance with his own views, and said he w as e 23d extremely surprised that Consul Bonham , Writing on May, 1861, should not have given his Government th information concerning the state of brigandage in Naples. But Mr. Bon ham, writing on the 28th June, said, " I have to report that brigandage has increased to a great and alarming ex- tent." The Earl of DERBY thought it unfortunate that at that period of the session the noble marquis sh ould have felt it necessary to call attention to the proceedings and conduct of the Duke of Modena, but at the same time he did not at tach the slightest blame to his noble friend for having come forward in the manner he had done to satisfy what appeared to him to be the claims of public justice as well as of private friendship for a prince in misfortune, and who had been at tacked in an extraordinary manner by a Minister of the Crown. (Hear.) It might be of little consequence to that house what was the character of the Duke of Modena, or what the conduct he pursued at particular times; but it was of the greatest possible consequence to the character of Parliament and of the country whether a member of the Government should be permitted to make charges against a deposed sovereign which rested upon no sufficient evidence, and which it was impossible the person accused could have an opportunity of meeting—(hear)—and when the noble lord who had just sat down said he thought it most extraor dinary that the noble marquis should not have brought for ward his vindication of the Duke of Mcdena in the place in which the accusation was made he know perfectly well that his noble friend had no opportunity of making his statement in the llouse of Commons, or of bringing Mr. Gladstone face to face with him in the House of Lords. But in the cor respondence which had passed his noble friend had drawn from Mr. Gladstone from time to time, and in some points a not very generous admission of the errors into which the right hen.. gentleman had fallen. A generous mind would naturally shrink with repugnance from taking an advantage of an o pportunity, eve n if that opportunity were f orce d on him, of expressing in public his exultation and triumph over the fallen, and putting forth slanders against the un fortunate. (Hear, hear.) And yet without the slightest mecessity, and without any provocation to the course, the right boa. gentleman had volunteered an attac k i n the House of Commons, and had volunteered to bring against an absent so vereign charges . o . f a most hem' was character, an d which he was subsequently compelled to admit he had not taken the trouble to ascertain the truth of. He (the Earl of Derby) had seen the letter from the Duke of Mo dena to which his noble friend had made reference, and he was sure that if it could be placed before their lordships they would find that there was no expression from the be ginning to the end that did not show the just and honest indignation of a man unjustly accused by the Minister of a friendly Sovereign, who availing himself of any opportunity of addressing the councils of the na tion, and speaking with the authority of a Minister, brought forward charges founded upon documents which were not in the possession of the public, and which the duke had not seen. And their lordships were called upon to say whether in their opinion these were authentic docu ments and figures. His noble friend had stated that so far as they were authentic, he knew them to have been published faithlessly and in a most unjustifiable manner. Those were papers which were left by the Duke of Modena, in the confidence that they contained nothing that could be injurious to his character. They had been taken from amongst the archives of Modena ; whether they were accurately printed from those archives it was impossible to say. But the extracts quoted did not, even as quoted, bear out the heavy charges which Mr. Gladstone thought fit to make in his place in the House of Commons. The noble lord had entered upon the discussion whether the Govern ment of Modena was or was not an arbitrary government, and appealed to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack to say what would be his view if the judges here were called upon to revise a sentence, and to the extent of increasing it. It was not necessary to tell the house that the Government of Modena was not a constitutional Government, or that the duke exercised an arbitrary power—that was not the ques tion, and there could be no comparison between the authority of the Duke of Modena and the authority of the Government of a constitutional country. But the question was open to the specific charges which Mr. Gladstone thought fit to volun teer, not for the purpose of sh owin g the arbitrary character of the Government, but the disgraceful manner in which, according to his statement, the duke had exercised the power which the law placed in his hands, and in proof of which he had brought forward that by an ex post f ac t o edict an order of executi on had been issued against a young man for murder, under circumstances which, by the law of the cou ntry, did not justify capital punishment. It was left from this statement to be inferred that the young man was exec uted. But subsequently the right hon. gentleman had re l uc t a ntly admitted that his words conveyed something more than he was justified i n sa yi ng , re it era ti ng , however, the assertion that there was an ex post facto edict which rendered this young man Granaij liable to be executed. This was do very different statement to the first; but even this had been clearly disproved by the evidence brought forward by his noble friead. No young man under 21 had ever been executed in Modena during the duke's reign. That was an indisputable fact which defied con tradiction or question. (Hear.) It was true that after atrocious crimes had been committed in the duchy the duke, writing to his minister upon the subject of the altera tions about to be made in the code of law, did point out the inadequate sentence passed upon Granaij under the law, and desired that the law should be so modified as to include within the offences liable to capital punishment cases of pre mediated murder, even though the criminal should be under 21 years of age. Was that a very unjust law ? He wanted to know whether it would be possible in this country for any criminal in a case of premeditated murder to plead that he was under 21, and that therefore he was not liable to capital punishment for his crime. (Hear.) The Duke of Modena had, with a view to check the frightful increase in the crime of murder, given directions for this alteration, and that was the sole ground upon which Mr. Gladstone's charge rested of an ex post facto edict having been issued' by which Granaij was made subject to the penalty of death. But the duke had distinctly and emphatically stated that even the recommendation for that alteration of the law was not an edict, and that it was not intended to apply to the case of Granaij, or any case that had previously occurred, The animus of Mr. Gladstone was shown in his statement that the Duke of Modena directed the edict to be acted upon by a commission consisting of Austrian officers, and that it was directed not to refuse the evidence of soldiers. The population at the time was notoriously in a state of insur rection, the place was in a state of siege, and yet this was made one of the gravamina of Mr. Gladstone against the Duke of Modena. With regard to the appointment of this commission it was proved that there had not been for eighteen months an Austrian officer in Modena. It was proved also that only five persons had been executed under the law referred to, and all for offences visitable with the punishment of death by the civil law of the country ; and not one under the age of 21 had been executed. These were the charges, and these the refutations. Charges were made in the House of Commons against an absent and unfortu nate sovereign ; and when the question came to be dis cussed, when their lordships felt all the injury that was done to the character of the country by a Minister of the crown availing himself of his position to put forth groundless and unfounded accusations, and when the noble marquis offered a fair and frank refutation of them, he was met with the remark that Mr. Gladstone was not there to defend himself. (Hear.) That was exactly the case with the Duke of Modena ; when the accusations were made he was not present to defend himself. The noble lord (Lord Wodehouse) had, he thought, taken an unusual course in quoting papers which were not upon the table. He thought it was a matter of perfect indifference to his noble friend whether those documents were produced or not, but of this he was quite sure, that if they would substantiate the charges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. gentleman's colleagues would have had no difficulty in pro ducing them. (Hear.) Ho should not recommend his noble friend to press the Government for the production of papers which he did not think could be essential to his case, but trusted that what had passed in that house would be some reparation to this unfortunate sovereign for the grievous wrong and injustice to which he had been subjected in the other house. Earl GRANVILLE quite agreed with his noble friend that it was a very disagreeable task, if necessary, to make any attack, not only upon a deposed sovereign, but upon any person not present to defend himself. But he saw nothing in the case of this deposed sovereign, which made it a graver or more reprehensible offence to refer to accusa tions against him more than to accusations against the King of Sardinia, his ministers, and his generals, who had no means of repelling those attacks any more than the Duke of Modena. Nothing was more intelligible than that in a discussion upon Modena and the rights of her people some inquiry should be made as to the character of the government they had resisted, to show if the sovereign had pursued the revolutionary course of ruling the country contrary to the established law of the country. With re gard to these charges there was only one point which had been impugned at all, and on that point the Chan • cellor of the Exchequer, after correspondence with the noble marquis, and after an examination of the facts of the case, had come to the conclusion that with regard to a por tion of what he stated he had been mistaken, and had made a statement in his place in the House of Commons to that effect. The noble marquis alluded to the character of the right hon. gentleman's speech from a short abstract in a weekly paper. He (Earl Granville) had sometimes seen abstracts of the noble marquis's speeches which he was sure his noble friend would not acknowledge as a true represen tation of what fell from him. (Hear, and a laugh.) The objections raised by the noble earl as to the book from which his noble friend quoted proved a want of argument. The noble earl's contention was that it was not the rule to read letters or despatches that had not been previously laid upon the table of the house. The documents were published by the de facto Government of Modena, and they were pub lished a year ago. The noble earl said he had not read them, and that the duke had had no opportunity of seeing them, which was quite incomprehensible, for the book had been printed and circulated all over Italy and France, and if they had been forgeries they would have attached indelible disgrace to the person circulating them. Nobody, however, had ventured to say that the documents were forgeries; no one had stated that they were not transcripts of the direc- ' tions of the Duke of Modena to his Ministers and private secretaries ; and there was no doubt whatever that they earl were extracts from authentic papers, and no doubt they Proved that th e G overnmen t o f th e D u k e o f Modena had not b een carried on in o pp os ition to the law. The noble assumed that th e G overnmen t wou ld re f use th e pro duction of th e papers and he co u ld upon that he had founded an attack upon them. conceive the house thought it worth the ex pense,eev e no disadvantage that would result to the public s erv i ce fromHe certainly did obj ect t o laying the papers upon the table. th se if they were carried r cha personal discussions, and thought it would b e more satisfactory on in the house where the in the same opinions was made, and where there were members who entertained u p o n this subject as the noble mar who had introduced the discussion. (Hear.) ina t Lord BRO UGHAM, who s p oke fr om the Government s ide of the hou se, said ho regretted he had not been tht situation whilst his noble friend was speaking, es in that case he should probably have heard him more Perfectly. Every one probably wa s favourable to those porti ons of a correspondence which supported it, he would probably read his own conclusion s ; and if ha were called upon to read his own letters with gre ater distinctness and emphasis and much more audibly than tho se of the other corr L esp u on ht de e n r t s (Laughter.) So it had happened in this case. ( he should The letters of Mr. Gladstone had been read by a the g noble marquis less audibly—not voluntarily, God forbid lay such a charge to the noble marquis—(laughter) —nor wilfully—but though he (Lord Brougham) had knowingly and wilfully endeavoured to hear both sides, h e certainly had not heard the letters of Mr. Gladstone so distinctly as he had those of his moble friend. The charge against Mr. Gladstone was this—that he had accused the Duke of Mo dena of issuing a retrospectiva edict, which went to the punishment of offenders under legal authority ; and Mr. Gladstone assumed that that retrospective edict had had its operation, and had caused the execution of Antonio Granaij. He did not for a moment suppose that execution did not follow the sentence, because everybody knew, and indeed it was i roved, that the Duke of Modena was very impatient of punishment for crime being too lenient. It was shown that very summary justice took place at Modena, and if any sentence were given, there was very little doubt that execu tion would take place upon that sentence summarily. Again, if this were an edict for the purpose of punishing persons for offences Committed previous to the issuing of the edict, the very probable presumption was that this per son had been executed. Mr. Gladstone had indeed received information that he actually had been executed. Then it was laid to Mr. Gladstone's charge that he did not suffi ciently retract, when he found he had been mistaken.. But Mr. Gladstone, in the House of Commons —in the very place where the charge was made—(hear, hear)—did ex pressly state that he had been misinformed, partly by the inference which he had drawn, and partly by the informa tion he had received. He (Lord Brougham) did not happen to be present in the House of ' Commons when Mr. Glad stone's speech was made. He should always be glad to be there when so great a speaker, so brilliant and so excellent an orator, as Mr. Gladstone was to be heard. But it so happened for the last 31 years he had not crossed the threshold of the House of Commons except twice ; upon one occasion to hear Mr. Gladstone speak, about a year ago ; and again the other night, to hear his:friend the noble viscount explain the intentions of the Government with re spect to their lordships' amendments of the Bankruptcy Bill. (A laugh and cheers.) It was said to Mr. Gladstone, ic why do you not retract ?" He (Lord Brougham) said, Mr. Gladstone did retract, according to the information he had received from those who heard him. Then with re spect to the book, Mr. Gladstone's statement proceeded upon documents published by the provisional de facto Go vernment of Modena; and the book had now been for up wards of twelve months exposed to sale. But it appeared that there were two persons to whom it was inaccessible. The Duke of Modena could not by any means obtain a sight of this book—(hear, and a laugh)—and it also appeared that the noble marquis could not obtain a sight of it. Probably they were 'the only persons who laboured under this difficulty ; and had not been able to see the book in question, Mr. Gladstone had the authority of the Govern ment for the statement; and then, said his noble friend, How can you tell that these documents are not forgeries ?" But, said Mr. Gladstone, "How can you tell that they are?" Nobody affected to believe they were forgeries ; for anything that appeared they were authentic ; and therefore Mr. Glad stone's defence was complete. But if these papers were in the Foreign-office there was no doubt they would be forth coming, and then their lordships would be able to see them and discover whether Mr. Gladstone was borne out in his statement or not. He (Lord Brougham) wished to speak with all respect of the Duke of Modena, who was in mis fortune, but he obseeved that the duke said in defence that he had left all his papers behind him, and these papers would show that he was perfectly clear of the charge. Now it certainly was a very uncommon course for persons to take, whether on a throne, or not on a throne, to commit matters to writing, to manufacture evidence against them selves, and afterwarls leave that evidence behind them which they had made to convict themselves. What was the Duke of Modena's defence ? " Search my repositories and you will find no papers to show that I am guilty." But al most every criminal on his defence at the Old Bailey might make the same sort of defence, and make it with perfect truth. The statement that they had left no papers to crimi nate themselves would probably be perfectly true. The Duke of Modena, if such a line of defence were adopted for him, might in coming to their lordships' house pray for a good deliverance, not merely from his accuser, Mr. Glad stone, but from his friends. (Laughter.) He might re peat the Spanish proverb, " Save me from my friends. I can take care of my enemiesmyself." He (Lord Brougham) must add that he thought there was no act more without justification or extenuation of any sort than for one nation situated as France or Piedmont was to enter upon another Ration, under pretence of improving its government, and to seize upon its territory. Under that pretence the greatest L of all crimes in ancient or modern times, the first partition of Poland, was perpetrated in 1772. And as for the govern ment of Rome, even if it were as bad as the atrocious ' tyranny of the Bourbons in Naples had been, there was still no excuse for the partition of Rome. But he heartily ; wished that an end could be put to the Papal Government, which was one of the worst that ever existed, provided it could be done by the people themselves, and not by foreign armies. He hoped the day would arrive when they would free themselves from the bad government under which they were suffering, and that that would be done by themselves, left to themselves, without any intervention of others. He also trusted before long to see the French army withdrawn from Rome, and the people left to their own free choice of government. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had no wish to prolong the discussion, as he understood there was no objec tion to produce the despatches he had originally moved for. He felt mere than ever the necessity for their production after the very zealous, and of course able advocate, that Mr. Gladstone had met with in his noble friend. His noble friend had acted in that precise spirit against the Duke of Modena of which he (the Marquis of Normanby) complained. Nothing could be more unfounded than some of the taunts that had been thrown out against him. As he understood there was some difficulty about consenting to the immediate production of the additional papers to which he had referred in his former statement, he begged to give notice of a ml tion for their production on Friday. REVISION OF THE LITURGY. Lord EBURY presented a petition from certain clergy and laity of the Church of England in favour of a revision of the Book of Common Prayer, which gave rise to some discussion, in the course of which The Bishop of LONDON stated that the subject was about to receive the immediate attention of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. LOCOMOTIVES BILL. This bill passed through committee. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) ADVANCES AND THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1861. REPAYMENTS OF MONEYS BILL. The report of amendments on this bill was brought up and agreed to. TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL. After a brief conversation the report was received. EAST INDIA COUNCIL, &c., BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL The report of amendments to this bill was received. PIERS AND HARBOURS BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. TURNPIKE TRUSTS ARRANGEMENT BILL. This bill was also read a third time and passed. WHITE HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL, The report of amendments to this bill was received. Their lordships rose at half-past 9 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Speaker was summoned by the Black Rod to attend in the Upper House to hear the Royal assent given by com mission to several bills, for which see Lords' report. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Blanc Valley Railway (Lords) ; Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Railway (Lords) ; and Glasgow and Milngavie Junction Railway (Lords). The folllowing bills were considered and ordered for thiri reading :—Atkinson's Trust) Estate, Cornwall Railway, Victoria Docks Gas, and West of Fife Mineral Railway aid Charleston Railway and Harbour Companies. AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNS. Mr. Alderman 3ALOMONS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the trial of the pyx which had justbeen made, Australian sovereigns coined at the branch of the Royal Mint at Sydney were submitted for assay, an if the quality of such sovereigns was equal to those corned at Tower-hill ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his hon. friend must be aware that the Australian sove reign was not a legal tender, and was rot a coin of the united kingdom. That being the case thesovereign in question did not receive the benefit, if there were any, of the test to which the other sovereigns were subjected. How ever, this test was no longer necessary to establish the value of a coin, and the Australian sovereign had under gone a test that proved it fully equal to the sovereign of this country. Alderman SALOMONS gave notice that le would draw the attention of the house to this subject next session. CONI ROLLERS OF CUSTCNIS. Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the Chancalor of the Ex chequer what arrangements had been madefor the discharge in the outports of those duties which were formerly per formed by the Controllers, whose offices are now abolished : And whether provision had been made for employing the Controllers whose services had been digpensed with upon duties as nearly as possible analogousto those which they have previously had to perform, and frr securing to them their fair chance of promotion to superior situations as they may fall vacant ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that as the principal duties of the officer in question were other wise provided for, the office had been abolished. The former system which had been practised had been discon tinued, and the consequence was that some of these officers had been employed as collectors or clerks, and some had received compensation. Employment could not be pro vided for all these officers who had been reduced, and they were placed on the retiring pension list. He could assure the hon. member that there was every disposition to provide as far as possible for the reduction in the officials caused by the alterations that had taken place in the customs. MR, LEVER. CONINGHAM rose to move the following of which he gave notice :—That Ur. Irwin's petition, relating to the Royal Atlantic Mail Steam Navigation Company, be re ferred to a sele ct - committee, to inquire into the allegations of the said petition. laid th a t he (l u i u r derstood there was no The SPEAKER charge against the hon. mem b er Lever ) since he be came a member, and he thought there was no precedent for the present p rocee ding. Ho would leave tne matter in the hands of the house. Mr. LEVER said that as he was a mercantil e man and engaged in larg e works it was most desirable that the charges against him should be investigated without delay. Sir J. PAKINGTO N said that whatever the p eriod might be at which the charge was made, he thought the hon. member should have an opportunity of vindicating hi s character without delay. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. GREY said that ho had consulted precedents on this point, and he found that it was only in cases where the charge made against an hon. gentleman affected his cha racter as a member of this house that an inquiry of this de scription was granted. Mr. LEVER, in accordance with the expressed feeling of the house, then rose to make his explanation. He went through the petition clause by clause, and denied the various allegations as they related to him. He denied that Mr. IrWin was the originator of the AtlaniiCkail Steam Packet Company, and he entered into various details to show that the other statements were not sustained by facts. Ti He stated also that Mr. Irwin had been convicted for forgery, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, and fined £5O at the assizes in Ireland in 1835. He said also that Mr. Irwin had availed himself of the benefit of the Insolvent Court to get rid of the costs of a suit against him insti tuted by him (Mr. Lever). After some further discussion, the motion was negatived without a division. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. The house then proceeded to consider the Lords' amend ments to this bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the house disagree with the amendments of the Lords which related to the proposed appointment of a chief judge of the court. Sir H. CAIRNS seconded the motion, which was agreed to without a division. Some of the amendments up to clause 20 were agreed to, except those in question, which were negatived seriatim. On clause 21, which related to official assignees, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the house disagree with the amendments of the Lords to this clause. Mr. M. SMlTH•contended that they ought to postpone their decision relative to this clause until they disposed of some of the subsequent clauses when the whole subject in connection with official assignees was raised. Sir H. CAIRNS defended the bill as it originally stood, and said it did away with many grounds of com plaint in respect to official assignees, , because it pro posed to remunerate them by salary instead of by per tentage as at present. Under the arrangement proposed by the bill, if creditors did not wish to have any official assignees to deal with the bankrupt's estate they were not compelled to do so. To some extent he agreed with the objections that led to the alterations in the other house in this clause. But at the same time at this period of the session he could not take on himself the responsibi lity of endangering the passing of the bill by offering any opposition to the clause. Mr. MALINS concurred with the hon. and learned member in the opinions which he had expressed, but de clined to divide the house on the question, and thought it better for the house to acquiesce in the motion of the At torney-General, and endeavour to restore the bill to the shape in which it originally left the House of Commons. Mr. HADFIELD supported the motion of the Attorney- General, but expressed his opinion that the duties of the official assignee would be much less under this bill than they were at present. Mr. VANCE thought there would be considerable diffi culty in the working of this clause, and regretted that the hon. and learned member for Belfast had not given the house an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the views he had expressed. Mr. FORSTER approved of the clauses of the bill which give a supervision over the conduct of the creditors' assignees. Mr. W. MURRAY considered that one official assignee to each commissioner would be quite sufficient for the trans action of the business, and he thought that £BOO a-year in stead of £1,200, would be ample remuneration for their duties. He thought that the time had arrived when credi tors should take the estates of the bankrupts and work them themselves, without incurring the expense and incon veniences which would be incurred under the provisions of this bill. The hen. member referred to the enormous charges of the official assignees, and instanced a case in which one of those gentlemen charged for his services, during 10 months, a sum of more than £4,000. A second assignee claimed £2,600, but had overcharged the estate in the sum of more than £l,OOO. His experience led him to the con clusion that the administration of the estates of bankrupts was in no degree better than it was in 1831. He had seen estates wound up by inspectorship of trustees very much more efficiently and economically than under the Court of Bankruptcy. Mr. GLYN said that the main cause for commercial classes looking with favour on this bill was the power which it proposed to give to the creditors' assignees. The feeling against letting estates falling into the hands of offi cial assignees was very strong indeed, and the objections which had hitherto existed against creditors' assignees were removed by the proposition of appointing the official as signees as auditors for supervising the work of the creditors' assignee. Mr. AYRTON suggested whether some words should not be introduced into the clause which would have the effect of preventirg any inconvenience resulting from two sets of assignees collecting the debts, one taking those under £lO, and the other all debts over that amount, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that official assig nees were established in 1831 for the purpose of co-operat ing with creditora' assignees, but it had been found that although the offcial assignee collected, held, and had the management of hrge funds, still no efficient system of audit existed. The accounts were audited as a matter of form by j the Commissioner, but he had no practical knowledge of the subject, and the hon. member (Mr. Murray), had given some instances if the abuses which occasionally took place in respect to the accounts of the assignees. A return recently presented to Parliament showed that in the casee of five offi cial assignees the defalcations had amounted to the sum of £120,000. He was of opinion that the creditors' assignee would being to the fulfilment of his task great commercial knowledge, which would ensure the proper performance of his duty; and care was taken by the provisions of the bill th it the official assignee should have constant supervision over the duties of the creditors' assignee. In fact the oppor tunities for abase would not exist under the bill. There was a great and general desire on the part of the commercial community that these clauses in the bill, as they originally stood, should be retained. The towns of Belfast, Birming ham, Bristcl, Coventry, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Wolver hampton, and other places, were all in favour of the reten tion of the clauses, and he was quite sure the house would vote in their favour. Mr. POVILL said there was a strong opinion in favour of the clauses as they had originally passed the house. At the same time local chambers of commerce looked at the matter in a point of view affecting themselves. It was difficult to lay down any given rule with respect to the assignees. He should suggest that the collection of the debts, under and above £lO, should be made elastic ; that was to say, instead of saying all debts under £lO should be collected by the official assignee, and all debts above that aisount be collected by the creditors' assignee, the creditors should be at liberty to determine the precise nature of the luties which each assignee should discharge. Mr. HENLEY thought the house should disagree with the Lords' amendment in this particular clause, seeing that the commercial public were opposed to it. The Lords' amendment touching the creditors' assignee was then disagreed to without a division. The clauses of the bill were then gone through. The AT TORNEY.GENERAL moved that the house do agree to several of the amendments of the Lords, and disagree with others, the nature of which he specified. In every case the motion of the right hon. gentleman was agreed to. Sir F. KELLY moved to disagree to the Lords amendment in clause B, following clause 97, by omitting the words in line 6, " but no debtor," and thence to the end of the clause in line 12. There was no power contained in the bill under which a trader debtor could obtain relief under this clause as amended. Mr. MALINS seconded the motion. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was ready to support the motion. He thought there must have been some over sight on the part of those who had introduced this amend ment in the Lords. After a few remarks from Mr. HADFIELD, the house disagreed to the latter part of the Lords' amendment. On the clause relating to non-traders, Mr. MALINS objected to the amendment of the Lords, which restricted the application of the Act to debts and liabilities of non-traders, incurred before it came into opera tion. He would move that the Lords'Zamendment be dis agreed to, if he thought that he would obtain the support of the house. (Move, move.) He certainly would take the sense of the house on the question. After some further conversation, Mr. VANCE supported the amendment made by the Lords, because he considered it unfair to make old debts liable to procedure under this new bill. Mr. HADFIELD opposed the amendment of the Lords, but hoped the hon. and learned member for Wallingford would take the sense of the house on his proposal. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the noble lord at the head of the Government had stated that the Govern ment did not intend to make any proposal with regard to the amendments new under discussion. Looking to the state of the house at that moment, and considering that the hon. and learned member for Wallingford had given no notice of his proposal, and many members were absent, relying on the statement of the noble lord, that, as far as the Government was concerned, no action would be taken to induce disagreement with the Lords' amendment on this point, he felt that he could not, with propriety, concur in the motion of the hou. and learned member for Walling foul. If that motion was agreed to, and the bill went back in that shape to the Lords, there was every fear that the bill would be lost. Mr. M. SMITH thought they ought not to assume that every debtor who resided abroad did so for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. He was glad that the Govern ment meant to adhere to their original resolution. Mr. Alderman SYDNEY regretted to hear the Attorney- General state that he could not vote for the motion of the hon. and learned member for Wallingford. Mr. WALPOLE thought they ought not to disagree with the amendment made by the Lords. The view he took of the question was, that instead of there being a measure assimilating the law between traders and non traders being a measure beneficial to non-traders, it would confer great benefit upon them. The law allowed traders to obtain a c er tifi cate i f t h e y g ave up their property, but with respect to non-traders it allowed their creditors to keep them in prison until their debts were paid. It was idle to contend on behalf of non-traders that this bill would have a prejudicial effect. He did not wish to make the law re trospective, because when a great change was made in the law on the strength of a pledge given by the Government with respect to its operation, it was questionable whether they would be able to make future changes if they paid no attention to s uc h p l e d ges. F or that reason he wasinfavouor of keeping up the law as it at present existed. The house would be unduly taken by surprise if this change was now forced upon it. Mr. MALINS said he would not divide the house on his proposal, as he had Lot given notice of it. The house then agreed with the amendment made by the Lords. Clause 103 was then struck out. On clause 105, the amendment of the Lords, relating to certain county courts, in which petitions for adjudication of bankruptcy may be filed, was disagreed to. A number of verbal amendments necessary for carrying out the alterations made in the former clauses were agreed to. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the appointment of the following committee for drawing up the reasons of the house for disagreeing with the Lords' amendments :—The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Sir George Grey, Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Malins. This motion was agreed to. The house then went into Committee of Supply. On the vote of £100,414 for the British Museum, Mr. WALPOLE said the increase of £3,300 in this vote was partly occasioned by the decrease of the head keeper of the Museum. There was another item of £2,700 for special purposes. Last year he had to ask for £3,700 under this head. The vote now was principally for valuable Oriental manuscripts belonging to General Taylor. Two committees had been appointed last year, who made certain recommen dations and one of the most valuable reports that ever was presented to the house. In the drawing up of that report the late Mr. Braidwood rendered essential service. The question was, whether the building should be opened in the evening. Mr. Braidwood said it was one of the deleterious properties of gas to dry up papers, and produce discolora tion ; and that if an explosion tookiplace, the consequences might be most serious. The consequences were that the committee reported against the opening of the South Ken sington Museum in the evening. There was another report respecting the British Museum as to the propriety of sepa rating or keeping together the whole of the collections. The Government had been unable to advise the committee upon that head. Within the last few days some most valuable collections had been received, and now the qvestion was, whether the Government could give additional space for that and the rest of the collection, if the collection were to be separated, then additional space would be imperatively required ; if it were to be kept together, then, of course, the space that would be needed must be confined to its pre , sent limit. • Mr. GREGORY regretted that the Government had not thought fit to propose a real enlargement of the Museum. At the same time he knew the financial difficulty of the Government, and he would rather that the building should remain in its present form, than that piecemeal alterations should be made. He had hoped that the Chanceller of the Exchequer would have proposed to adopt the proposal of the committee of which he had been chairman, to purchase cer tain lands abutting on the Museum, which would have en abled them to make the institution one really worthy of a great country. He had himself last year been of opinion that the mediaeval collection should be removed from the British Museum, and to that opinion he still adhered. He was aware that some difficulty might be started as to an ac curate definition of the mediaeval; but, in point of fact, it would be comparatively easy to settle the question, while, at the same time, a great deal of amusement and harmless excitement would be given to antiquarians. He, however, would strongly insist upon the necessity of preserving in the British Museum everying which might throw light on our national history, whether mediaeval or not. The pro posal to remove the natural history collection was, in his opinion, the most extravagant, the most useless, and the most unpopular that could be conceived. He regretted that so eminent a man as Professor Owen should support such a plan after its absurdity had been pointed out. If Mr. Old field's plan bad been adopted for the arrangement of the sculpture, great advantage would be the result, and great expense would be saved to the nation. He thanked the Government for improving the position of the gentlemen connected with the Museum. He regretted that the Museum had lost the services of Mr. Oldfield, and thought that the trustees might well have acceded to his terms. He had to congratulate the trustees on their obtaining the collection of M. Chaillu, and admitted that the conduct of that gen tleman had been most liberal. Whatever plan the Govern ment might propose next year, he hoped they would never propose to separate the natural history collection. Mr. LAYARD complained that, notwithstanding the important:suggestions which had been made by the com mittees which had sat on this subject, nothing had been done. He believed that the trustee system of management was altogether a vicious system, and that the whole should be placed under one responsible head. The collections of Halicarnassus and other marbles were all concealed be hind, in a hoarding in the portico, and the rain and soot beat in through the hoarding on these marbles, and had done them a serious amount of injury. While this niggardly sys tem was going on, the house was perfectly ready to vote large sums for:purposes of a useless and extragavant nature. With respect to the collections themselves, he thought they ought to be judiciously separated, and the plan which he would propose was to separate the works of God from those of art—to have one department of science and one of art, both perfectly distinct and separate from each other. The ethnological collection, the dresses of the New Zealanders and other tribes, he thought could be advantageously re moved to some collection at the East-end. There was a col lection of portraits in the British Museum which he consi- dered might be usefully removed to the National Portrai _ _ Gallery. He did not agree with the proposal to separate the medimval collection, and take one portion to Kensington, and to leave another at Bloomsbury. The Campana collec tion had been lost to the British Museum through the want of energy in the officers of that establishment, and this was evidence that some change was necessary in the organisa tion of that establishment. At the present time there was no collection in the world equal to that of the British Ma seum, but it was almost useless on account of its bad arrangements. The system of management was radically bad. It was now tee late in the session to adopt any exten sive plan, but he should feel it his duty next year to bring forward the whole question, with a view of settling the matter upon a satisfactory footing, and forming one com plete art collection worthy of the country. The reading room in the British Museum showed what could be done by a proper system of adaptation, when not followed by that great curse of architects. (A laugh.) That was an instance of what should be done by a man of practical common sense, and not by an architect, who thought only of his columns and deiments, and their jimcracks, without paying any regard to the purposes for which the building was re quired. (Hear, hear.) Mr. M. MILNES also complained of the congestion of articles in the British Museum, which prevented the spe cimens being so useful either for purposes of art or educa tion, as they ought to be. The reason of the comparative uselessness of the Museum was that the Government and the house had declined to look fairly in the face the ques tion of separation. The hon. member for Galwayhad spoken in the strongest terms against the idea of separation, but he was, after all, a great separatist himself, though he pro posed the factitious division of Christian and Pagan art, li whereas he (Mr. Milnes), and those who thought with him, were desirous of seeing a broad distinction made between r works of science and those of art. Under the present sys tem, the collection of collections was perfectly bewildering and almost repulsive. He was not disposed to attach much weight to the objections urged by the late Mr. Braidwood, on account of the use of gas, as he thought the buildings of the Museum might be lighted with gas in the same manner as the A.thenmum club, which was entirely lighted fronfthe outside, and where no deleterious effects were produced from thatsystem of lighting. The government of the British Mu seum was in the hands of amateurs, and the patronage of the.establishment, from a clerk to a housemaid, was left in the hands of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. (A laugh.) This was a state of things which called for imme diate reform, and he hoped that the subject would receive the serious consideration of the Government. (Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that on the whole the view presented of the British Govern ment, the British people, and their Museum, was not en couraging if they were to adopt the views of the pessimist party. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government was of opinion that the Museum did require some change, but the reason nothing had been done was because of the wide dif ferences of opinion which prevailed on the subject. It had been said there should be no " patching." It was, no doubt, very easy to subscribe to that opinion, but the question was what this " patching" meant. This patching might be made to include the addition of the 21 acres proposed by Professor Owen for the natural history collection. (Hear.) There could be no doubt that the in convenience of crowding in the Museum was very great, and the Government entertained the opinion that that diffi culty ought to be met by some plan that would afford a large and complete provision for a great length of time. For this purpose it was necessary that there should be a separation between natural or scientific objects and works of art. Her Majesty's Government were not, however, pre pared to adopt the suggestions of the committee of last year, for, though opposed to separation, they did not adhere strictly to the principle, but had recommended the removal of the ethnographic collections. It would be the duty of the Government to consider what would be due to the pub lic convenience, and in some respect to the public feelings, but so to act that it might not be required to undo or alter in the future what might be decided upon. Neither the Government nor the trustees of the British Museum would attempt to do anything which would be in contravention of their duty to the House of Commons. This, however, he would say, that the Government did not intend to adopt the recommendations of the committee. It appeared that there were in the building of the Museum some portions that might be remodelled with advantage, and there was some ground within the precincts of the enclosure of the building which might be made available for providing fur ther accommodation in the Museum. There were also some portion of the collections which might be removed without inconvenience to the public or to the scientific world. The Government thought that there were means of greatly im proving and increasing the accommodation in the British Museum, and there were no reason for at present entertain ing the question of the removal of the zoological or natural history collections. (Hear.) Sufficient time had been allowed for the consideration cf the report of the committee,te and it would be the duty of the Government to bring h matter under the consideration of the trustees duriPg the recess, in the hope that they would be able to devise some plan which would give satisfaction to the house and the country. (Hear, hear.) Captain JERVIS wished to know what was intended to be done with the works of the old masters in the British Museum ? Mr. TITI said that he could not see how it was possible to carry out the separation of the natural history collection from the Museum, but thought that the plan proposed by Mr. Oldfield would provide a very complete and efficient system, which would afford accommodation chronologically for the whole contents of the Museum. He did not think that any smaller plan could be adopted for providing accommodation in the building, which would not be liable to the charge of " patching" which had been referred to. (Hear.) The house shoulo, recollect that our friends on the other side of the CYnannel gave no less a sum than £36,000 for one pictir ee alone. Mr. SEYMOtia was anxious that the whole plan of conducting the Museum should be openly promulgated. The question. of separating the collections was most impor tant, and :here was no occasion for shrouding it in mystery. The trustees of the British Museum had lost very valuable collections, and had allowed those collections to pass into the hands of foreigners. There should be a responsible Minister of Education in the house, who should have the whole of this department under his control and responsibility. Mr. CONIN'GHAM protested against the present prin ciple of puralasing works of art by wholesale, and conten ded that sv.fficient discrimination was not exercised in their selection. Mr. WALPOLE defended the appointments of the various officers in the Museum and the constitution of the trustees. He believed it was a rash thing to disturb a government which had been successful, and, therefore, be was of opinion that it would be injudicious to remove the trustees. The most important question of all was the sepa ration of the collection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement upon that point was satisfactory. The trustees would consider all the plans submitted to them, and not shrink from expressing their opinion, leaving the matter in the hands of the responsible parties. They had obtained possession of the most valuable collections that ever were purchased, and they would not cease to render the Museum every way worthy of public patronage. Mr. AYRTON expressed a hope that no efforts would be left untried to keep the Museum open in the evening, for the amusement and information of the public. Mr. WALPOLE said this latter question had been seri ously considered. He was himself in favour of keeping the Museum open until eight o'clock in the summer months, but it was found that the public would not frequent it at that hour in any very considerable numbers. The vote was then agreed to, the Chairman reported pro gress, and the house resumed. The Durham University Bill passed through committee after considerable discussion on various clauses. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned. LAW 111 , T.ELLIGENCE.-July 22. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) MEAD V. MEAD. This was a suit instituted by the wife for a dis solution of marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty, which was heard on the 27th of May last, when the petitioner succeeded in establishing her case. The court subsequently pronounced a decree nisi, but there had been no order relative to alimony pendente lite. Dr. Deane, QC., on the part of the petitioner, now applied to the court to name a day for awarding permanent alimony. Sir C. Cresswell said that the petitioner had two months to make the application, and in the present state of business, when the Court was going to rise, he could not accede to an application of this de scription. ROUSE V. ROUSE AND DURRANT.-A CURIOUS CASE. This was a suit by the husband for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery. The respondent did not enter an appearance, but the co-respondent pleaded, and denied the adultery. Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Francis for the co-respondent. From the evidence it appeared that the peti tioner was in the employment of Mr. Smith, a draper, at Harlestone, in Norfolk, and in 1852 h e and a Miss Carran, a niece of Mrs. smith, who re sided in the house, eloped, and were married at Stepney in the February of that year. The peti tioner at that time was only 18, and the respon dent 15 years of age. • About a fortnight after the marriage, as the petitioner had no means of sup porting his wife, it was agreed that • they should separate and return to their respective friends. Accordingly the petitioner went to his family at Norwich, and the respondent took up her residence with her uncle at Harlestone, but they were in the habit of visiting each other until 1854, when the petitioner went away for some time, and for 14 months subsequently there was no interview be tween the parties. In the early part of 1855 the respondent gave birth to a child, of which she stated to two witnesses, Durrant, who was also an assistant to Mr. Smith, was the father. It appeared, further, that Durrant was in the habit of speaking in a " loose manner" to the respondent and romp ing with her during the 14 months the petitioner was absent. The evidence of the paternity of the child rested on this admission and some collateral remarks of the respondent as to its resembling Mr. Durrant in appearance and in a taste for music. The case stood over for the production of addi tional evidence, the learned judge having inti mated that he did not consider the case, as far as it had proceeded, one in which he should make a decree. GAWTREY V. GAWTREY. This was a suit by Robert Gawtrey, a clerk, in the employment of Messrs. Barber and Co., of Leadenhall-street, on the ground of his wife's adul tery with persons not known. There was no defence, and it appeared that the parties had been married for several years, and co habited until 1857, notwithstanding that the re spondent was very intemperate in her habits, and most violent in her conduct towards the petitioner. In the year in question she went to Weymouth, and remained twelve months absent from her husband. On her return the petitioner perceived that she was in a state of pregnancy. The drunkenness and profligacy of the respondent were represented to be of the most barefaced character, and The Court pronounced the decree nisi. Mr. Maconochie was counsel for the petitioner. FISK V. FISK. This was the petition of Emily Fisk, praying for a judicial separation on the ground of her husband's adultery with a young female named Harvey, and there was no answer by the respondent. Mr. Barry and Mr. Hanson were counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Gibbins attended to watch the case for the respondent. It appeared that the marriage was solemnised at Marylebone in 1836, and they lived together until August, 1851, during which period there were seven daughters issue of the marriage, five of whom are living. In 1850 the petitioner formed an acquaint ance with the female Harvey, and had three chil dren by her. The respondent left him in 1851, and they had not subsequently cohabited. After the separation the children were placed under the care of the petitioner's mother, who resided at Lavender road, Battersea, and according to the evidence of two of them, during her absence their father came to the house accompanied by the woman Harvey. He and Harvey remained for a few days, and dur ing that time occupied the same bed. The Court pronounced the decree of judicial separation. HAYNES V. HAYNES AND ECKSTEDT. This was a suit instiuied — bydiehu;band, a coachman in the service of a gentleman at Den mark-hill, for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery with .the co-respon dent, who is a piano -tuner. There was no defence. Mr. Lewis was counsel for the petitioner. It appeared that the parties were married in 1854, and lived happily together until 1858, when the petitioner saw his wife coming out of a house of ill-fame. Shortly afterwards the respondent went to live with the co-respondent, and they had since lived together as man and wife. It appeared further that there was no issue of the marriage, and that since the presentation of the petition the respondent had instigated parties to assault her husband. The case was fully proved, and the Court made the decree nisi with costs. HARRIS V. HARRIS. This was the petition of the wife for a divorce on the ground of her husband's adultery, bigamy, and desertion, and there was no appearance on the part of the respondent. Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and another learned gen tleman were counsel for the petitioner. The parties were in a humble rank of life, and the marriage was solemnised at Manchester, in Oc tober, 1839. They cohabited at different places in Northamptonshire, and in 14 86 th e res p ondent en listed in the 86th Regiment of Foot, and went to India, where he was afterwards joined by his wife. r c e o e u c hnei nisi, i , n w v ei with They returned to England in 1847, and lived toge therdeelmarried another until 1851, when the respondent left the peti tioner and she had not seen him since, although ashffeectdnraetceeitveerdmas.letltenr I fr B o s m 2 h h female, by whom he had a family. The Court pronounced the costs. IiENDELL v. KENDELL AND BARROW, was the hi an undefended s u it f or a divorce, on Ts grou nd of adultery, -which was instituted by the who is a d per in extens i ve business Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner. Is was p rove d i n evidence that the parties were • • at n h o u x s t b o a n n . d , raper married at Ludlow, in Shropshire, where the respon dent's parents were residing, and lived together for eight years at Hungerford, in Berkshire, after which they removed to Hoxton. The petitioner took a house at 1, Woburn-place, Russell-square , as his private residence. One evening, about the mid dle of August, 1860, the petitioner came home at the usual hour, and found a note from his wife to the effect that she had gone to her mother at Lud low, where she proposed remaining for a few days. This was on Friday, and she went to her mother's) and remained till the following Tuesday, when she left with the ostensible object of returning home. The petitioner saw nothing more of her, but she was traced to 3, Western-villas, Ealing, with a gen tleman who went by the name of Barrow, but they had subsequently been lost sight of, and the court had dispensed with personal service. Letters were read from the respondent to her mother, in whi ch she admitted having formed an adulterous inter course, but that she was perfectly happy, and in one letter she said, with reference to the marriage settlement, that this and the owner of 1, Woburn , place might go to Jericho." (Laughter.) It was also deposed that the petitioner was proud and fond 1 of his wife. The Court pronounced a decree nisi with costs. TAYLOR T. TAYLOR AND URQUHART. This was a suit by the husband for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, a captain in the army, t ° which both defendants pleaded denial. The re spondent did not appear by counsel. Dr. Swabey was counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Paget for the co-respondent. Dr. Swabey stated the case, Mr. John Rowland Taylor, the petitioner, was married to the respond ent on June 3, 1860, at St. George's, Hanover' square. There were some peculiar circumstances' for it appeared that the petitioner had a connexion with the respondent before his marriage, and similar intimacy subsisted between her and th e co-respondent for some years. The petitioner re sided with his mother at Bristol, and being anxious to conceal the fact of his marriage placed the re spondent in a cottage at Cotham, a suburb, where he visited her regularly. The co-respondent wrote to her, and the letters were addressed to a female servant. Ultimately he went to Cotham and spent two nights at the house without the knowledge of the petitioner, he and the respondent occupying the same bed, and ultimately she eloped with him, 0 4 had not since returned to her husband. This narrative was confirmed by evidence ; but in the course of the cross-examination, it was elicited that the petitioner consented to his wife bearing the name of the co-respondent after the marriage, as' signing as a reason that it would be the means 91 more effectually concealing the marriage from h I S mother. Sir C. Cresswell said the case required some oil" sideration, for although connivance had not been pleaded, it appeared very strange that the petitioner should have allowed his wife to go by Captain Ur' quhart's name, and he did not think the reason given satisfactory. It had been proved in the ev!" dnce that the petitioner behaved kindly towallt s his wife, but that was not the point to be considerea , but whether there were such acts on his part ei would induce the belief that h e h a d b een gu ilty: (/' connivance, and justify his dismissing the petition,. Judgment was accordingly deferred. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER-JuLY 20. A fair supply of wheat, but a very slow business dola' Best samples at the prices of last week. In Spring COIO very little doing at late rates. Wheat, white s6s to 60s Beans, Mazagan..36 4to 42 ,4 red 44s to 56s I Middle & small 38s to 4 4 ° 4 Barley —s to —s I White peas 44 t Oats —s to —s Grey.. 38 ; to' o 4, 8 0 CHELMSFORD—JuIy 19. A very limited attendance at market to-day, but whe st t ., was plentiful. A dull trade. Best sorts of wheat barev maintained last week's prices. Spring corn of all decal''' . tions very dull, and prices as before. Wheat, white 28s to 61s I Yeas Partridge — 44 s to 4 , 51 red 37s to 57s 1 White 43s to 4°5 Barley 29s to 42s Boiling 43 s to 410 Chevalier ....32s to 45s Dun 40 s to 4 35 Grinding 26s to 37s Beans, Tick ....39s to 485 Malt 61s to 67s Harrow Ticks 39s to 05 Chevalier 64s to 69s Mazagan 33 8 to 05 Oats 26s to 31s . NOTTINGHAM--JULY 20. The supply of wheat was fair to-day, and extreme ra t 4 4,,, were obtained. Barley in limited show, but equal to tP" demand. Oats firm. In beans no change. Wheat ....39s to 69s I Oats.. 36s to 54S White do 47s to 77s 1 Beans 4os to 5 00 Barley . ..29s to 31s 1 Ditto, old ........56s to 60 KIRKALDY—JULY 20. A good supply of wheat to-day, but moderate of oa t! and only two sacks of barley. A ready sale. Good whe at 6d to is decline on last week's currencies. Oats were a lB° 6d to is cheaper. . Wheat Barley O a t s First.... 36s Od I 30s Od I 25s Od Second .. 53s Od i 35s Od 29s Od .. 58s Od I —s Od 31s Od THE MAILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South . July 1 9' ampton) . Do. (via Marseilles) Aug. 14. Brazil and Cape Verds .• Aug. 4 . Buenos Ayres, Monte Video, Bco. Cuba and Mexico .„ .. July 0 ' Canada, &c. (via L'derry) July Cape of Good Hope, &c. Aug. 1 ; China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) July 17 ; Do (via Marseilles) July 2 4' Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. July 17 ' India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) July „ Do. (via Marseilles) July 27' India (Bombay), (via:Southampton) .. .. July 2°' Do. (via Marseilles) .„ J u ly 20 , Lisbon .. July 21 . Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. July I °' Do. (via Marseilles) .. July 2,°' Vigo, and Oporto .. .. July 2,„ 1 " United States, California, &c. July Iv° Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Teneriffe A ug , 10. West Indies and Pacific. Carthagena. Cuba, &c. July 29. LADVERTISEMENT.]—Nothing can be more interesting than the numerous extraordinary cures without Medicin e by Du Barry's delicious Health Restoring Revalenta Art' . bica Food. We give a few :—Winchester, December 00 1847.—Gentlemen,--I am happy to be able to inform yo ll l that the person for wh om y our R eva l enta was procure d h ' , derived very great benefit from its use ; distressing sYr r i, toms of Dropsy, Dyspepsia, and Constipation of long stn't, ing have been re s t ore d, an d a f ee li ng o f restored health '""t: duced.--James Shorland, late Surgeon, 66th Regime ,r Cure No. 48,314—Mi ss Eli za b e th Y eoman , G a t eacre , Liverpool a cure of ten years' dyspepsia, and all the l a° 4 rors of nervous irritability. Cure No. 46,814—Mr. Sil„, Laxton, Leicester, of two years diarrhoea. Cure 0 - 1 52,612—The Dowager Countess of Castles tuart, , many years nervous irritability, bile, and indigestin Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointran' and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's . which, at a few pence per day, saves be times its cost other remedies, removing effectually, 'without purging constipation, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) ner vous , bili o us n - to liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificn No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew viii MD., F.R.S. Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of sP",:f rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety 4 false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 agsiSd Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the p r eted; that Nevill has a patent for Arabica F oo d an d that Y e. Barry's are connected with such patent a re u tt er ly fnl l 4 No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du 1 38 '7.,„ and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrs.Pta Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article 1 0 .,;, expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins , i l O , 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40e. 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on reclgr e . of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 777,',. 4 gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.; 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ;63 and 150, to . bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopsga,..,,, : street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and t'; tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co.. King Wilham - etre el City: at 127 High Holborn: and all grocers. BIRTHS. CRABBE.—On the 20th inst., a t the Royal Hospital, area ll ‘ with, the wife of Benjamin Crabbe, Esq., R.N., h e r IVl°' jesty's ship Hawke, of a daughter. DUCKWORTII.—On the 18th inst., at 38, B ryans too' square, the Hon. M rs. W. Arthur Duckworth, a daughter. SEurt.—On the 19th inst., at 5, Wyndh a _ . La place, Brit tli ' ston-square, the wife of Russell J. Kerr, Esq., of 0 daughter. MARRIAGES. R oB ERTSON—GIBSON.—On th e 20 th inst., at marpell - Chrch, Wi Ma lliam or Wybrow Robert son , younges t son v ° , the late j General Roberts on , t o Alice grii d a ughter of the Ri g ht H on. Thomas Milner Gibs° M.P. SCOTT—BURLEY. —On the 20th inst , at St. John's, Rich' or. mond, Claude Edward Scott, Es of of the 7th 1)111°r-it' Gitards, eldest son of Sir Claude Scott, Bart., to A..- 1 - a n ., Selena, semnd daughter of H. C. Burney, E s q., 70 of Richmond, and granddaughter of the late Adi ll Searle, C.B. B ETHAM.—On the DEATH On E ll dw S' ard Betham, Es F' Lincoln. B unuouGns.—ln the Mall, Clifton, Mrs. BurroughOf aged 78, D ASHWOOD.—On the 20th inst., at Ryde, Isle of IVO I4 suddenly, Mr. Thomas Dashweod, sen., aged 72. , D'EYNCOURT.—On th e 21 s t i ns t., the Right Hon. Cliar, !e p Tennyson d'Eyncourt, of Bayous Manor, Linoolns tur4 aged 77. EDWARDES.—On the 20th inst., at Shrewsbury, FranSe A S , / eldest daughter of the late Sir John Chohnondeley - 0 " wardes, Bart., aged 76. GowEn.—On the 20th inst., at Down Hall, Essex, $ 31.1 Leveson Gower, eldest daughter of the late General Le' veson Gower, of Bill-hill, Berks. -- A f LONDON : Printed and P ublished by MURDO YOUNG) -, No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN (Mee, No. 119,strAV.," in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County ut Mld dl!tc , • Tuesday, July 23, WI allowerNa4:l refit MiTr T o a 11 .0 ore or before t esrmi nat 4111 C South r, 01 loteres°tr:i 17 ' 131 1ke-st ItoY A] 29,Lc= libac i ib ed c C ....... ____3:rittyotr I th e 11 cArr 1 Lt m Pany hal ° T"" II E 1, 2. p rovidesy t It lends, about Or n& t ii t'gt. ',th doub e t A b Obevtaeirnaeld-11 bR The T tailing penal: 4 Von an An capa atur( 01 8 re r P r f o i „ 12g. b to N I „"ewb, 43 K cue, Ne ro ',