The Sun. — London, England, 1861-04-19 00:00:00

RIAL PA RLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY. .11,0YA.L COMMISSION. The royal assent was given by commission to the follow ing. bills : The Consolidated Fund (13,000,000) Bill, The Marine Mutiny Bill. The Mutiny Bill. The Exchequer Bills Bill. Th e Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Argyll, and Earl St. Germans. The LORD egANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. NEW PEER. The Earl of LArDERDALE took the oaths and his seat. CHURCH RATES. Several petitions were presented against the abolition of church rates. PAWNEROKING IN SCOTLAND The Duke of ARGYLL presented a petition from Mon trose complaining of the increase of pawnbrokerage in Scotland, and praying that some restrictions might be placed on a system which was creating great demoralisation in. that country. TIIE BANKRUPTCY BILL. Lord WODEHOUSE presented a petition from Norwich in favour of the bill. THE lONIAN ISLANDS. The Marquis of NORMANBY asked when the promised papers connected with the lonian Islands would be laid on the table ? The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought he should be able to produce the papers to-morrow. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Kendal Fell and Kingston-upon-Thames and Lea therhead Roads Bills were read a second time. The Fylde - Water, Northern Assurance Company, Lambeth Bridge, Edenfield Chapel, and Little Bolton Road bills were read a third time and passed. THE AFFAIR AT BONN. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY asked if the papers re cently laid on the table relating to tha affair at Bonn con tained all the correspondence on the subject, or whether further papers might be expected ? Lord WODEHOUSE said the correspondence relating to Captain Macdonald had entirely concluded. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said he believed her Majesty's Government had done all that they were called upon to do to assert the honour of this country. At the same time he could not refrain from expressing his opinion that the proceedings of the Prussian officials were most vexatious and inhospitable, and such a transaction he felt certain could not be found on the records of any other country. SUBDIVISION OF DIOCESES BILL. Lord LYTTELTON moved that this bill be referred to a select committee. The Bishop of CARLISLE advised their lordships to be very careful how the committee was constituted, to which this bill was to be referred. He greatly objected to increasing thelnumber of bishops and in lowering their state; the clergy, he thought, would generally suffer. He should like to know the alterations it was proposed to make in the bill. Lord LYTTELTON said he didnot think it was incum bent on him at that stage of the bill to state the alterations he intended to suggest in amPnfling the bill. He intended 0 gx the minimum income to be attached to every new bishopric that might be made, and to do all that was possi ble to make the bill an efficient one. After a short discussion the motion was agreed to. RAILWAYS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, praying that all railways entering the city of London should be required to run cheap trains every day except Sunday. Earl GRANVILLE said there would be some difficulty in carrying out such a proposition. t Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Brighton, Uckfield, and Tunbridge Wells Rail way, Elton and Blackburn Roads, Tiverton Roads, and Universal Private Telegraph Company. The Forest of Dean Central Railway bill was read a second time. ROYAL COMMISSION. Sir A. CLIFFORD, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, summoned the members to the Upper House to hear the Royal assent given by commission to different bills, for which see Lords' report. • DERItYVEAGH EVICTIONS. Mr. SCUL.LY moved for copies of all requisitions, re ports, notices, and correspondence from or to sheriff or sub sheriff of the county of Donegal, and from or to any resident • magistrate, officer of constabulary, or relieving officer, with reference to a recent ejectment of the lands of Derryveagh, in that county.—Ordered. NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND). Mr. M'EVOY moved for returns of the amount of money voted each year by Parliament for the purpose of National Education in Ireland from the commencement of the system to the year 1861 and, of the amount of local contributions each year in aid of teachers' salaries, of the building, fitting, and in closing of the schools, and of the amount of money contri buted by the Board towards the building of schools, also the number of schools in connection with the board built by local subscriptions without any aid from Parliament, and also the amount of any pecuniary assistance or other volun tary contributions in sustainment of the national system.— Ordered. SYRIA. Sir J. FERGUSSON gave notice that he would draw the attention of the house to the papers recently laid on the table in reference to Syria. IRISH FISHERIES. ID reply to Mr. DAWSON, Mr. CARDWELL said that he did not feel justified in extending the bill to Ireland. INDEMNITY TO THE BRITISH MERCANTILE COMMUNITY AT CANTON. Mr. FITZGERALD asked her Majesty's Government whether they could inform the house of the amount claimed by the British mercantile community at Canton as indem nity for property destroyed ; and, whether it was proposed that the indemnity of two millions of taels fixed by the Treaty of Pekin should be paid out of the money first re ceived from the Chinese Government? Lord J. RUSSELL said that the amount of the indem nity was estimated at £4,500,000, out of which £650,000 should be divided amongst the mercantile community. SAN DOMINGO. In reply to Mr. GREGORY, Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had not received any official information as to the occupation alluded to. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL. In answer to Mr. ROETItYCK, Mr. CLIVE said that this bill would not be brought on after 10 o'clock this night. THE CHINA WAR. Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, what proportion of the vote of credit (£3,800,000) taken for the expense of the China War had been actually expended and paid out of the Exchequer ; what proportion was estimated to be still payable out of the balances of the Exchequer in respect of expenditure chargeable to that vote; whither it was intended to surrender the right of drawing from the Exchequer any, and, if any,what portion of the sum so voted before applying to Parliament for a further vote of credit; and, whether he can explain to the house why a, further vote of credit, to the am ount of £1,000,000, is likely to be required, when there was an unexpected surplus, approaching £BOO,OOO, on the vote taken last. year ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it would be difficult to give an accurate answer to the last part of the question without entering into the whole ques tion of votes of credit. As far as the practicable object was concerned, he would make a short statement. With regard to the first part of the question, the amount ex pended of the vote taken for the China war, it was stated by him on 3londay when bringing forward the budget, and it was shown in the accounts published this morning. The portion to be paid would come out of the balance in the Ex chequer. The right hon. gentleman then entered into Come details explanatory of his reply. FORTIFICATIONS, &c. Sir F. SMITH asked the Under Secretary for War if any steps had been taken towards forming a central depot • for the War Department stores ; and, if so, whether it was t) be a mere appendage to Woolwich Arsenal, or whether any manufacturing operations are to be carried on there ; and, if any works provided fer in the vote taken in August last for fortifications have been commenced ; and if it is now contemplated not to construct some of the works that had been determined upon ? He hoped the Government would not proceed with the fortifications at prevent until the capabilities of the iron ships were more ( 4e 4 _aal tie ently tested, for if vessels shot-proof entered the Solent fortifications would be of no use. T‘,l? rs,, ARMY ESTIMATES. Le eStirnat as moved that the consideration of these lie comoaineatlid be deferred with a view to their revision. of the servic e in of the increase in the medical staff on made in horse cavalry the Var• office, when reductions were 'objectionable o and horse artillery, which was of the army, It: ground that it affected the efficiency £2,000,000 for fortificavoln not consider that the vote of to the amount o f 420,04'97: required, and he objected 428,000 more than was voted forTthlperiments, which was considered it was not necessary awaketpose last year. He much of a permanent institutionnd that it camp so to compel officers and privates, many of t w it h was a hardship several years is the colonies, to remain]n that had spent endure the privations which it necessarily in,„B:ciamP and Other departments of the mili tar y servic e were ". i n an un satisfactory condition with reference to expenditure, and he thought the army ought to be better fed an d clothed for the money voted for that] purpose. R e eon. eluded by expreesing his opinion that their estimates maxi. , bited pitiful parsimony or profuse profligacy, and that they Would consult the wishes of tho C42ll4trY VA4CaYOUrilag to reduce the military expenditure, of which the country was heartily sick. Mr. T. G. BARING said that the arguments of the hon. and gallant member who had last addressed the house did not prove the advisability of postponing these estimates, but went to prove that it would be desirable to go into committee, when the different items to which. he alluded to could be fully discussed. With respect to the military hospitals, the increase in the expenditure was rendered necessary to provide for the com fort of the soldiers, and the increase for barracks was caused by a desire to carry out that object also. He then defended the votes generally and expressed a hope that the house would not delay going into committee, when all the details to which the hon. and gallant member alluded to could be fully considered. Col. DUNNE said no doubt it would be more conve nient for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) to go into com mittee than to answer in a satisfactory manner. He com plained of the expenditure for military purposes within the last few years, and contended that the house should have received full information with reference to the diffe rent items in the army estimates, but that infor mation was more meagre than ever. He hoped the house would not grant these estimates until they received the information that was necessary to show that the requisite care had been exercised in regard to these items. Mr. B. OSBORNE was pleased that this subject was brought forward, and strongly censured the system of the camp at Aldershot. That camp he re- garded as the most demoralising and useless object for which public money had ever been voted, and it was nothing more than a preparatory school for making indifferent brigadiers. He thought, however, that these questions would be better discussed in com mittee. Col. NORTH could not agree with his bon. and gallant friend (Mr. Osborne) that Aldershot produced only indif ferent brigadier-generals. On the contrary, they had al ways shown their gallantry and done their duty equally as well as any other officers in the world. (Hear.) Col. LINDSAY observed that no one who took part in the operations at Aldershott could do so without adding to the information he had before. He did not think it was at all fair to say that Aldershott produced only indifferent brigadiers. The gallant officer who commanded at the camp was a man of great eminence in his profession, and the bri gadiers who served under him did their work excellently well. He did not think it was fair to mix up the officers at Aldershott with what his hon. and gallant friend termed the jobbery of erecting the camp. He did not believe, how ever, that camp was formed with foresight, and he had not the slightest doubt that the large sum of money expended upon it might have been much better expended in other ways. (Hear.) Col. GILPIN said he had occupied the new barracks at &ldershott. Whether they were built on an economical principle or not he could not say, but the barracks for the men were the best he ever knew—much better than those for the officers, and he believed if the government had searched England through they could not have obtained a better position for the lurpose. Mr. MQNSELL did not wish to prolong this discussion, but he wished to ask whether it was not possible upon these estimates to save a considerable sum of money ? The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other even ing was loudly cheered, particularly from these (the Liberal) benches, but now, when this question came before the house in a practical shape, some members of the Govern ment absented themselves from the house. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) In comparing the esti mates for 1853-4 with the present estimates, he found that the number of men voted for the British army at the former period was 119,181 men ; for the present year it was 146,055 men. The charges for the staff in 1853-4 were £175,895; this year they were £326,898. The next point to which he wished to call attention was the article of for age. In 1853-4 the Government had to provide for 9,450 horses ; this year they had to provide for 13,642 horses. He believed there was no great difference between the price of forage at the two periods, and yet in 185:3-54 they paid £269,165, while in the present year a vote was asked for £482,392. (Hear.) With respect to fuel and light, he thought the house had a right to expect some reduction, because they were told that the introduction of gas and cooking stoves would lower the expense, which in 1853-54 was £116,220, and yet in the present estimates they were asked to vote £482,392. (Hear.) There were next the charges for hospital furniture, and many other articles, with which he would not weary the house ; but he thought he had estab lished the fact that there appeared to be a most dispropor tionate increase in our estimates. (Hear.) In comparing our estimates with those for the French army he had eliminated the difference of conscription and the difference of the two military systems, and he found the difference as to the ex pense of the two armies to be this—that our estimates for the coat of 146,000 men were £14,066,000, while the cost of tho French army of 400,000 men was about £14,000,000. Deducting from our estimates for all pay, allowances, and non-effective men, £7,674,180, there remained £6,992,000 ; deducting for stores, ammunition, and guns, a further sum of £1,200,000, there remained £5,792,000. While allowing for similar deductions in the French establishments, the remaining charge might be placed at about £4,000,000. Here then they had the fact that for a similar class of charges for which the French, with an army of 400,000 men, spent about £4,600,000, this country, with an army of only 146,000 men, spent £5,500,000. If the house proceeded in such a wild expenditure they might depend ui2on it that the country would rise up against them. (Hear.) Gen, PEEL hoped his hon. and gallant friend (Col. Dick son) would not divide the house on his motion. The vote for fortifications had nothing t 3 do with these estimates, and it would not be in the power of the Under Secretary for War to give explanations about them. His hon. and gal lant friend, in his calculations, had been unmindful of the increase of the army from 1854 to the present time of 75 to 100 per cent., and his hon. and gallant friend had reckoned for the whole number of men upon the estimate, whereas nearly 13,000 of those men were never raised at all, and he had also forgotten that at that time the commissariat was not under the War-office; it was under the Treasury. There was a difference in the amount of the stoppage of the daily pay which, instead of being 6d., was only 41d. per day. Hon. members had pointed out where they thought these estimates were too large, but no one had pointed out that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) proposed to take money enough for the purpose he required. It was his (Gen. Peel's) misfortune to be obliged to point out where the estimates might be considered too great. He said that on the Ist of April they would have 3,000 men more than they had voted money to pay for. He had moved for a return of the number of men on April 1, and he found the number of effective men on that day was 145,862, while the number to be voted was 146,041, so that only 182 men were needed to complete the establishment. The number of men to be voted for India was 66,625, and the number of men actually in India was 82,200, so that there was an excess of 15,575 men for India. The Under-Secretary for War had pointed out that reductions were to take place to the extent of five regiments of infantry and one regiment of cavalry. Was that reduction to tako place on the Indian establishment ? Mr. T. G. BARING said the strength of the regiments in China would be reduced to the peace establishment. Gen. PEEL said the strength of regiments in India was already in excess of their proper number by 10,000 men. He wanted to know how the reduction was to take place. He lid not see how they were to reduce the number of men in India and dispose of the men. They must either dis charge them or wait till they were absorbed, and that would take some time. If there were any India troops in China after April 1 they would entail their expenses for Indian pay and allowances. Was that expense to bo met out of the additional vote of credit asked for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the next financial year ? He hoped that when they came to specific votes the Under-Secretary for War weuld be able to afford full explanations on this subject. Viscount PALMERSTON said the ccurse pursued by hon. gentlemen was inconvenient, unless their object was to ask questions and to make observations to which there could Le neither refutation nor reply. The usual course of pro ceeding upon army estimates had been founded upon good sense, and was well adapted to the convenience of the house. The Speaker was moved out of the chair, and the house went into committee. When in committee any number of questions might be put by any speaker, and his hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State might rise and answer them any number of times without violating the orders of the house. The matters which were to be discussed were divided into a great number of heads, and were taken one after the other, so that each subject might be kept separate and distinct. On this occasion, however, members had got up and discussed the details of votes which were ranged under two or three and twenty different heads; and when _ _ _ hie hon. friend had once spoken, he could answer no further questions that might be put to him. It followed, therefore, that all the observations which had been made, so far as answer, refutation, or explanation went, were of no practical utility whatever. He trust:A that the hon. member would not press his motion, but would allow the house to go into committee, when all these questions might be answered in committee with the votes to which th_y respectively re ferred. (Hear, hear.) He (the noble lord) should have confined himself to that request, had it not been for what had fallen from the member for Liskeard (Mr. B.Osborne). His hon. friend was very fond of sweeping assertions, and had a most ample vocabulary of strong words. Everything that he disapproved of was a job. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Osborne, and laughter.) Everything that he did not like was absurd, ridiculous, foolish, and preposterous ; but judging from the military opinions which he had given that even ing, he (the noble lord) must congratulate the country that ita defchces did not depend upon his hon. friend's knowledge or decision. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman said, " Look at that extravagant job at Aldershot." (Hear, hear, from Mr. Osborne.) He (Lord Palmerston) denied that it was ajob at all. (Hear.) On the contrary, he asserted that there never was a wiser application of public money, er a more advantageous or economical one. It was formerly one of the great wants of the British army, that it had no place where any large number of men could be assembled for the _purpose of learning combined movements. That feeling was so strongly impressed on the mind of the Government, that before Aldershot was purchased Chobham was taken. Now, Chobham was very expensive, and a large sum had to be iP w r i . in compensation to the owners of the crown rights, were ihterfered with by Oa fmnliticit 9f thQ Gitn3l3.' THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 10, 1861. .Aldershot, on the other hand, had only cost £l5 an acre, and anybody would say that there could hardly be a better investment in land than that. Why, if the property should ever cease to be wanted for the public service, it could be sold again for many times the sum which had been expended in its purehase. (Hear.) Then his hon. friend complained of the huts ; but those huts were required suddenly. Per haps, as it had turned out, it might have been more judici ous to have built them of bricks; but that would have taken a much longer time; and the wooden huts were at any rate much better than tents. As to the effect of Alder shot in forming regiments, in forming officers and gene rals, no military man whc knew anything about the mat• ter would concur with his hon. friend in saying that it had been useless. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore, that those light and violent expressions of opinion —(a laugh)—which his hon. friend was so very fond of throwing right and left would not find any sanction from the house. (Hear.) His hon. friend talked about the demoralising effects of the camp. He (the noble lord) really did not know what the hon. member meant by that ; but this he could say, the troops at Aldershot had been more healthy than any other body of men in her Majesty's service. (Hear.) With regard to Portsdown-hill, his hon. friend, who had erected him self into the supreme judge in all military matters, pro claimed his opinion that if he were shut up in the contem plated works he should be afraid of being undermined by the enemy. But mining and undermining implied a long siege. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Osborne.) " Hear hear I" Exactly. But did his hon. friend suppose that they were going upon the assumption that a foreign army would be left quiet before Portsdown-hill till it had completed its mining operations ? (Hear.) Why the only object we had in constrneting these works was to prevent any force that might suddenly be landed upon our coast from taking up a position on that commanding hill and destroying our dockyards at Portsmouth. It was nonsense to say that an army landing at Chichester or at any other point within an easy, distance, could not seize Portsdown-hill, if it were undefended, and from thence damage our fleet and dock yards at Portsmouth. (Hear.) Our object, therefore, was not to resist a regular siege, like that of Coblentz or Mentz, but it was merely to prevent the enemy taking possession of the hill by a coup de main. If we could keep it our selves until the enemy could take it by undermining, he believed that we should have good reason to be perfectly satisfied with the proposed works. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Capt. JERVIS thought that this debate would not be thrown away if it led in future years to the framing of more intelligible estimates; for in their present state it was diffi cult to learn from them what our army really costs us. It appeared, however, that the price of the army at home was £49 Bs. 4d. per man ; but in the colonies it was £54 lls. Bd, whereas the cost of the Berkshire police was £5B per man, the Kent £57, and the metropolitan the same, so that the army actually cost less than the police. The cost of our colonial army depended upon the political exigencies of the moment, and therefore varied greatly. Thus Malta cost us in 1853, £359,464; in 1855 it rose to £496,046; but in 1857 it fell again to £442,722. So the Cape of Good Hope cost us for troops in 1853 the sum of £527,514 ; and in 1856 that amount rose to £924,000; but in 1861 it was little more than the charge for Malta. The increase in the estimates since 1853 had principally arisen in the item of materiel, for which, in consequence of the enormous revolution that had taken place in the art of war, they must expect in creased charges for some time to time. Col. DICKSON then withdrew his motion. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to ask how that portion of military expenditure which was voted by the colonies themselves was accounted for ? Mr. CIIILDERS said that that question was under the investigation of the committee sitting upstairs on the subject of military colonial expenditure ; and he ventured to suggest that the Under-Secretary for War should not commit him self to any distinct statement, for the answers the commit tee had at present received were very unsatisfactory. Col. NORTH begged to ask if it was intended to carry out the recommendation of the select committee on military organisation, as proposed in the scheme of the Secretary of State for War, for reorganising the War Department ? Mr. T. BARING said the Government were engaged in carrying into effect the recommendations of the committee. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Evesham he could not altogether shelter behind the recommendation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Childers). The allowances made to the troops by the Australian Government, for example, were extra, and consequently did not come into the accounts. With respect to the questions of the hon. and gallant mem ber for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), no steps had been taken with regard to the central depot because the survey had not been completed. With regard to the state of the fortifica tions he would tell the hon. gentleman exactly what had been done. [The hon. member then read a report, the de tails of which did not clearly reach the gallery.] The Se cretary of State for War would take care that the house was not pledged beyond the estimate which was already sanctioned, and which was not £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, as the hon. and gallant member said, but £5,345,000. In answer to Sir F. SMITH, Mr. T. O. BARING said that Netley Hospital was not yet finished, and that there was no intention of removing the Medical School. lair. Og BORNE saki th a t the noble tura s seemed to have been a little disturbed by the dinner at the Mansion-house. The explanations that had been given were evasive and unsatisfactory. Did the Under-Secretary for War mean to tell the house that works were in progress, the plans for which had not as yet been approved of ? Mr. T. G. BARING said that it was the plans which he had said were in progress. Mr. OSBORNE—Then it appeared that the plans had been altered for which the money had been voted. If he had said thus much he would have been set down by the noble lord as light and violent. Re thought it was the noble lord who was light and violent. He (Mr. Osborne), as an independent member, and one who had not been re turned by the influence of the noble lord, would take the liberty of criticising even the noble lord's own pet subjects when they were extravagant. The noble lord talked as if he (Mr. Osborne) had been merely expressing his indivi dual opinion ; but the fact was that he had for tified himself with the opinion of the Director- General of Fortifications, who had said they were unnecessary and extravagant. He fortified himself with the.opiuion of the eminent engineer officer opposite, whose word was quite as good as the ipse dixit of the noble lord. He repeated that the explanations given by the Under Se cretary for War were most unsatisfactory. All he could gather was that five millions were b be spent, as he be lieved, in a" light and violent" way. (A laugh.) It ap peared that they were not to be allowed to consider the estimates. They were to go into committee forthwith, and then, their business was, not to consider, but to vote. It was for holding a different opinion he was lectured by the noble lord, who was perhaps suffering under large doses of colchium, and wished to give him (Mr. Osborne) a share of the twinges he was suffering himself. (A. laugh.) Lord PALMERSTON was sorry that anything he had said should have so much disturbed the equanimity of his hon. friend. Perhaps it would be advisable if his hon. friend took a dose of colchium himself, as it was supposed to be of a very sedative quality. His hon. friend ran off on a mere play of words. What his hon. friend the Un• der-Secretary for War had said was, that the plans were under consideration, but the plans were not what they were going to discuss. The fortifications were distinct from the army estimates. It was obvious that before works of such importance as the fortifications were undertaken, it was es sential that the scientific working of the plan should be most carefully considered, and should be subjected to the opinions of scientific and capable men over and over again. What his hon. friend had said was, that the detailed plans was not so far advanced as to enable them to take the con tracts. Colonel LINDSAY expressed himself still dissatisfied with the Government explanations. Sir F. SMITH wished to know what were the works, and where they were to be placed. They knew that a million and-a-half of money was to be spent, but they were not told how or where. The house went into committee. The first vote was the balance of the vote for pay and allowance of her Majesty's land forces, £1,780,000. Lord W. GRAHAM objected to the manner in which the expense of the military force in the colonies was set forth in the estimates, in some cases the total expense requiring to be looked for under different heads. Mr. WILLIAMS noticed an increase in several of the minor votes. Colonel DUNNE complained of the annual increase in the expense of the recruiting department, and yet the result was never more than an average of 18,000 men. There was also an increase this year in the number of supernumeraries, although he knew that the majors coming home from India were to be left on the strength of their regiments. Colonel DICKSON believed that the army estimates this year would be nearer 16 millions than 14 millions, and that the alleged reduction was fallacious. The reduction of £427,000 in fortifications had nothing to do with this year's estimates. Besides, there would be a supplementary esti mate for the militia of £500,000. He found an increase of £9,227 in the expense of the medical staff, and an increase of £40,000, and another of £50,000 for food for the hospital department. Every one knew that seven per cent. was a large rata of sickness for the army, and there was an addi tion of £lO per man. He thought that this required some explanation. department SAYeosn o i f de th re e d Colonel LINDSAY D a t r h m e y r e . were e g h r e e n at l d m defects neh in the rather have the assist int-surgeons attached to regiments than to the staff. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that there had been a reduct!on of one assistant-surgeon in each regiment. The evidence taken before the committee was, that the medical men had done their work well. He could bear testimony that the increase of medical officers in regiments had been productive of great benefit to the ser vice. With regard ta London, in which there were five regiments, and in which the barracks were permanently divided, there were only ten medical officers. They had three detached hospitals in the district, and while in the country medical officers were allowed to reside away from the hospitals, in London one medical man was obliged to reside in the hospital. The medical meu were insufficient in number, and ought to be increased. With respect to corporals and lance corporals in regiments, he begged to say their number was by no means sufficient for the require -4814t0 vi the reginacts, aAd their duty wtis comequentiy very severe. He therefore thought thelVar Office oug to resolve to increase the pay of that class. (Hear.) Then, with regard to the men, his opinion was that their pay ought to be increased 2d. a day, after their re-enlistment at the expiration of their term of service. The proportion of soldiers who re-enlisted was certainly comparatively very small ; but he thought the increase of 2d. a day would have the effect of inducing the men to re-enlist. Colonel KNOX entirely concurred in all that had been said by his hon. and gallant friend who had just addressed the committee in relation to the medical officers, and he joined with him most earnestly in urging upon the War Department to take the recommendations made into their serious consideration. Colonel NORTH, for one, could not agree in what had been said by the hon. and gallant officers in relation to the medical department, and in his opinion the Government instead of meeting with censure were entitled to credit in this matter. Mr. BARING thought that that would appear in the votes. In answer to the difficult question put by the noble lord the member for Herefordshire, viz., whethar it was possible to ascertain the military expenditure on behalf of each colony, he said it was a matter under the consideration of the committee upstairs, and he did not see any objection in giving the different amounts of expenditure in each colony. (Hear.) The question of the hon. member for Lambeth might be answered by stating that the increase in the esti mates for the supernumeraries was in consequence of there having been an increase in the regiments. (Hear.) At present there was no intention to remove the second surgeon from the battalions of the Guards. (Hear, Mar.) Colonel NORTH thought it was an injustice that cavalry officers should not receive command money as well as artillery officers. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he found that the cost of the staff abroad was £193,557, and the cost of the staff at home was £133,340, making a total of £326,898. Now that was, is his opinion, an enormous sum to pay under that head. Mr. B. OSBORNE called attention to the fact that a major-general had recently been appointed to command the brigade of Foot Guards. Now he was not at all prepared to say that that was not a proper appointment to make. But if they were to adopt that arrangement, he did not see why they should continue to maintain three colonels of the three regiments of that force. The 'practice that formerly prevailed was, that each of those colonels should command the brigade in turn, but that could not be maintained if a brigadier was permanently to receive a large amount. He also wished to know why it was thought necessary to appoint a major-general in the Australian colonies, where there was only a regiment or two stationed, with a lieutenant general in New Zealand, as well as a major-general in Nova Scotia. After a few words from General UPTON', Mr. CIIILDERS agreed with the hon. member for Liskeard, that no necessity seemed to exist for the appoint ment of a major-general to the command of the Guards Brigade, or of a major-general in the Australian Colonies, or of a lieutenant-general in New-Zealand. He disap proved of 13 surgeons being added to the Medical Staff at the Cape of Good Hope, while the troops in that colony were reduced one-third. Major STUART KNOX believed the appointment of a major-general in command of the Brigade of Guards was quite unnecessary. That officer only had to perform the ordinary duties which were discharged by colonels in the line. Lord A. CHURCHILL thought there was no necessity for continuing the appointment which had been made after the Crimean war. He should move that the vote before the house be reduced by £1,038, the expense of the major general and his staff. Colonel DICKSON proposed that the vote of £105,000 be reduced by £9,823, the increase of the medical staff re muneration for this year. Mr. BARING said the effect of the course proposed would be to increase the number on the half-pay vote. He thought the committee would hardly be inclined, without further inquiry, to carry out such a redaction. Mr. CHILDERS recommended the hon. and gallant gentleman to persevere in his motion. Those who thought the medical staff ought not to be increased were bound to vote with him. Colonel NORTH said he would vote for maintaining the present staff. Mr. B. OSBORNE said there had been an appeal ad nrisericorcliam made on behalf of the medical staff, but no sympathy was manifested for the taxpayers. He hoped they would divide, and then the country would know who attended to their interests. After some conversation the committee divided, and there appea red— For the reduction 46 Against Majority. .. —2O The vete was then agreed b. Lord A. CHURCHILL moved to reduce the pay of the general commanding the brigade of Guards by the sum of £1,028 14s. 7d. Colonel LINDSAY said the Adjutant-General now had become, he was sorry to say, little better than acleik in his own department. A lieutenant-colonel commanding a regiment of Guards was, in point of fact, brigadier. Colonel DUNNE said they ought to take the whole sys tem of ate atitfi generally, and not oe taene 6 it ;„ cues tions of detail. Let them take the whole question—Was the staff fitted for the service ? Mr. B. OSBORNE wanted to know how they were to deal with such questions except by taking them in detail. After a few words from Mr. T. G. BARING, Mr. MONSELL said that the expense of the brigade of Guards had risen from £170,000 per annum to £330,000, and if that system of extravagance went en they could not know to what extent that system of extravagance would run. (Hear, hear.) Colonel KNOX thought that the appointment in question in this vote was unnecessary. Lord PALMERSTON said that as to the system of the organisation of the battalion of the Guards, they had heard from the hon. and gallant gentleman who had commanded a regiment of Guards, a cl?.ci,lei opinion that the arrange ment would tend to the efficiency of the brigade of Guards. Hon. gentlemen who were not military men were not de barred from forming an opinion upon military matters, but they ought to give due weight to the opinions of military men who were interested in this matter, and who were anxious for the good of the service. With respect to the point as to which was the best method of ensuring the effi ciency of that nucleus of our military force—namely, the Guards—the question being whether those six battalions of Guards were to be alternately under the command of dif ferent officers belonging to the Guards, or under the per manent command of a major or lieutenant-general, it was clear to him that for the unity of system and for the regu larity of arrangement the proposition under coasideration was the best calculated for that purpose. (Hear, hear.) It might be matter of opinion what should be the amount of our military force, but whatever that force was all persons must agree that it abraulcl be as efficient as pos sible. He was of opinion that if - Placed under the direct inspection of one officer, who was not changed from month to month, the brigade of Guards would be more efficient. He hoped the committee would place confidence in the opinion of military officers and sanction the arrangement. Lord A. CHURCHILL said that if a General was ap pointed to the position in question it ought to be one who had command of all the troops in the metropolis. After a few words from Mr. A. SMITH, The committee divided, when there appeared— For the amendment B6 Against it Majority Mr. B. OSBORNE then moved that the allowance of £691 19s. 7d. to the Major-General in lieu of the Govern ment of Anapolis Royal be omitted. Mr. BARING said the appointment in question had been held by the Commanders,-in-Chief of Nova Scotia. When that appointment was abolished, this grant of money was given to the military officer, who was also the civil officer of the colony. Captain JERVIS said the objection to the vote might be got rid of if the grant had been converted into "table money." Mr. B. OSBORNE said that after the explanation of the hon. gentleman opposite (Captain Jervis) he should not divide. (Laughter.) Mr. HUNT then proposed the omission of the vote of miscellaneous contingencies, amounting to £75,028 in page 7, on the graund that there was no explanation of the item. Mr. BARING said that the explanation was to be found in page 29. Mr. A. SMITH said there was no item in page 29 cor responding with the item of £75,000. Mr. CIIILDERS wanted to know wby there should he an increase in the expenditure for the medical officers of the Cape. Mr. BARING was not then prepared to give an expla nation on that point. Mr. CIIILDERS then said he thought the vote ought to be postponed. Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY remarked that the vote of con tingences had been increasing from year to year. Mr. A. SMITH moved that the vote bo postponed. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wishzd to know why it was such an enormous increase took place since 1858. Lord J. RUSSELL said the vote could not be lessened while those establishments were efficiently carried on. General PEEL said it was utterly impossible that every document could be given, or the details of each vote spe cified. Mr. A. SMITH did not wish for details but details that they could understand, in order to know what the vote was for. Mr. BARING said the vote could not be divided, nor ea ch particular item given. Col. DICKSON believed that hon. members were always talking of economy, but here they were voting large sums of money without any reduction whatever. Sir M. PETO urged the Government to postpone the vote until an explanation be given. .A.fter a few words from Mr. BARING, The committee divided, when the numbers were— For the vote 122 Against it .......... 28 - -- Majority —.94 The vote was then agreed to. The next vote was £lO,OOO for annual allowances to the Grenadier Guards. Mr, CQNINGHAAL wished to know wily it was so large an allowance was given to the Grenadier Guards, while in the line it was only £4OB. Ile wished the Under Secretary of State for War would give some explanation of that dis crepancy between the two sums. Lord DUNKELLIN said the difference was owing to a greater number of men being in a battalion of the Guards than in. those of the line, and of course the allowances must be larger. Mr. BARING, in explanation, said that certain work that was done in recruiting and certain allowances, caused the increase to which the hon. member referred.l Mr. BRUCE said the Guards had certain advantages over other regiments, but he was at a loss to know why they should have allowances and advantages in the pro portion of five to one over the other regiments. Col. LINDSAY, after a few words from Sir HARRY VERNEY, explained the grounds upon which the allow ances were made. Mr. 'WILLIAMS said he found in the Life Guards one officer to every ten men, and a non-commissioned officer to every five men ; while in the ordinary cavalry regiments he found there was one officer to every 1G men, and a non commissioned officer to every nine and a half men. Now it was well known that the Life Guards had nothing to do. (Laughter.) Well, they had nothing to do but to attend upon her Majesty. He also found that in the Foot Guards the pay of the officers was much larger than that of officers of the same grade in other regiments, while the latter were the men who were commonly called upon to go abroad, and to fight for the country, and bear all the hardships of the service. Some discussion ensued, in which Sir F. SMITH, Col. LINDSAY, and other hon. members took part, and termi nated in Mr. Coningham withdrawing his opposition to the vote, which was then agreed to. On the motion that a sum of £648,090 be granted to werds defraying the miscellaneous expenses. Major STUART KNOX objected to the amount of the vote, and having expressed his disapproval of the battalion system of depots as most unsatisfactory, he moved as an amendment that the vote be reduced by £41,337. Some discussion ensued, inwhich Col. NORTH and Capt. JERVIS defended the depot battalion system as operating in a most beneficial manner in relation to the Fervice. Colonel DICKSON hoped his hon. and gallant friend :Major Stuart Knox) would modify his amendment. Colonel DUNNE called attention to the different systems of drill that was in operation at the depots, and said he knew of no system which was more objectionable. It was a bad system, and ought to be altered. Some discussion ensued, in which Colonel SYKES and Mr. CARNEGIE took part, after which Mr. BARING said he entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant officer that the question was wholly one of discipline. But the important question was whether the soldiers were to be left to drill themselves, or to be drilled by officers attached to the depot battalions for the purpose. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had ex pressed his most decided opinion in favour of the system. Sir George Wetherell (a most distinguished officer) ani General Love, Inspector-General of Battalion Depots, who was also a most disinguished officer, were in like manner in favour of the system. He might also state to the com mittee that he had received a letter from a high military authority in France approving of the system, an l informing him that they had adopted depot battalions of instruction in that country in imitation of the English syptem. Colonel DUNNE thought they ought to have an expla nation why the estimated expenditure for recruiting was raised by £5,000 or £6,000. Sir J. PAXTON wished to know if the vote of £41,337 were disallowed, would any further sum be asked from the house in connexion with the expenses of staff battalions. Mr. BARING feared, if the vote were disagreed to, that provision should be made for the supplemental pay of officers. After some further conversation, Major S. KNOX expressed a desire to withdraw the amendment, but it was put and negatived without a divi sion, and the item of £11,337 was agreed to. On the question that the main vote of £648,096 be passed, Mr. CHILDERS moved the omission of the sum of £11,157, the allowance for the Foot Guards in lieu of the stock purse formed for recruiting and hospital expenses. Mr. 'WILLIAMS said that he had several amendments to propose, and he claimed the right of doing so. The CHAIRMAN said that it was not competent for the hon. member to do so, as the vote for the depot battalions had been agreed to. Mr. CHILDERS withdrew his amendment, in order to enable the hon. member for Lambeth to move his amend ments. Mr. WILLIAMS complained that he had not been al lowed to ask for explanations respecting some items in the votes. In page 9 there was a charge for marching allow ances, escorts, &c., £6,000 last year, and £15,000 this year. The vote of last year for medical services was £148,000, this year it was £lBB,OOO, being £40,000 more than that of last year. Another item for the movement o troops amounted last year to L 73,000, and this year it was charged at £llO,OOO, being £37,000 more than the charge of last year. Water carriage last year was £64,000, this year it rose to £69,000. On those two items there was an increase of £42,000. Col. DICKSON rose to order. He hoped the hon. gen ttemau•„ es , hle" into those items would not precludo others from taking something earlier in the vow., The CHAIRMAN said the hon. member (Mr. Williams) was out of order unless ho intended to conclude with a motion. (Cries of "Move, move.") Mr. WILLIAMS—No, lam not done yet. (Laughter.) There are several other items here altogether exceeding the votes of last year by £90,748. I move that those items be reduced by that amount. The CHAIRMAN said the hon. gentleman might move for a reductioa in the amount of the first item. Mr. WILLIAMS then moved that the item for march ing allowances and ccnveyance of troops be reduced by £9,000, which would make the vote the same as that of last year. _ _ - Col. DUNNE said he would support the motion of the hon. member for Lambeth. He could not see why, when the army was decreasing the expense should be increasing. Mr. BARING said the estimates had been carefully pre pared, and the excess, as compared with last year, was ac counted for by the votes of last year being inadequate. After a brief discussion, in which Sir F. SMITH and other hon. members took part, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY complained that sums of money voted for particular purposes were disposed of in other ways. After a few words from Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR, Mr. 'WILLIAMS concluded that the Government were not justified in altering the applications of votes of money mado by the House of Commons. If this were allowed, the votes of that house could not but be considered as a mere farce. Lord PALMERSTON said that certain charges could be ascertained with perfect precision, such as the number of troops, clothing, and the like, but in other cases there could not be the same certainty, as was the case in reference to the number of recruits and the removal of these recruits. The expense in this latter must be conjectured, and last year the estimate upon this point was not equal to the amount required, and this year it was thought desirable to raise the estimate in this particular. This was the explanation which he had to offer to the committee on the subject. Mr. MONSELL thought the observations of the noble lord did not meet the objection which had been raised to the vote. Mr. HENLEY must say that he did not see the force of the noble lord's observations. It was clear that Govern ment meant to recruit a smaller number of men than was recruited last year, and therefore it was strange that the vote should be increased. Mr. BRUCE thought that £15,000 for moving 20,000 men was no very extravagant sum. Lord BURGHLEY having said a few words, Mr. T. G. BARING said in explanation the amount of this vote would not be more than was necessary. General PEEL having said a few words, The amendment was negatived without a division. On the question being put that the sum of £llO,OOO should be voted for the removal of troops, Sir F. SMITH moved as an amendment that the vote should be reduced by the sum of £37,000. Mr. BARING explained that a great portion of the ex pense was occasioned by officers moving about from place to place to acquire a knowledge of their duties. Sir F. SMITH then withdrew his amendment, and the vote was agreed to. The CHAIRMA.N then reported progress, and the house resumed. THE QUEEN'S PRISON BILL. Tho house then went into committee on this bill, the clauses were agreed to, and the house resumed. The Reading Charities Bill went through committee. Mr. CRAWFORD moved the second reading of the Volunteer Tolls Exemption Bill. He wished it to be read a second time merely pro forma, in order to introduce cer tain alterations in committee. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL recommended his hon. friend to withdraw the bill, and bring' in another which would contain the proposed alterations. The bill was then withdrawn. CHARITABLE USES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. REVISION OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. The CHAN CELLO I of the EXCHEQUER moved the appointment of a select committee to revise the public accounts. Mr. lIENNESSY objected to the appointment of the committee, on the ground that there was not a single Irish member's name in the list. The subject was a most im pel taut one, and one from the revision of which the Irish members ought not t) be excluded. Mr. FITZGERALD also regarded the question as a most important one, and must say that it appeared strange that the Government, in moving the appointment of such a committee, should also have excluded from it every,Scotch member. Mr. LYGON moved the adjournment of the debate. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he could not consent to the adjournment of the debate, and with regard t) the objections taken by the two hon. mem bers to the composition of the committee, and the absence of any Irish or Scotch members in it, he did not think the objection a good one, inasmuch as it appeared to him that UP) three kb:T(191115 were so bowed 121 3 in their interests t)lat it could be matter of little difference whether there were Irish or Scotch members upon it, The house then divided— For the adjournment of the debate Against it Majority —2B On the name of Mr. Cobden being proposed, Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they had every reason to believe that Mr. Cobden would be able to attend the house and discharge his Parliamentary duties in the course of a fortnight. Mr. Cobden's name was then agreed to. Mr. WHITE moved that Mr. Baster's namo should be substituted for that of Sir B. Leighton. The SPEAKER said such a motion could not be made without notice. • Mr. WHITE moved the omission of Sir B. Leighton's name. The amendment was negatived, and the committee as proposed was appointed. The house adjourned at 20 minutes to 1 o'clock. PAIRS. MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. FOR. AGAINST. Mr. Beale with Mr. Hornby Lord Galway .. — Mr. Divett Mr. H. Berkeley — Mr. King King Lord Andover — Mr. Powys Mr. Wykeham Martin Mr. Merry Mr. Augustus Smith — Captain Gladstone Colonel French Mr. Murray . Lord Hamilton Lord Dunkellin Sergeant Pigott — Mr. Macaulay Mr. Steel Mr. R. W. Crawford Mr. Dent — Mr. Heygate Alderman Copeland Mr. Liddell .. — Lord R. Montagu Colonel Powell Captain D. Darner — Lord Henniker Mr. Gregson .. Mr. Greenwood Hon. C. Howard — Mr. Cross Baron M. de Rothschild — Hon. R. C. Hill Baron L. de Rothschild TRUSTEES OF CHARITIES BILL. FOR. AGAINST. Mr. Beale with Mr. Hornby Mr. Heneage Mr. Merry Hon. C. Howard — Mr. Cross Mr. Blencowe — Captain Gladstone Mr. Tite Lord Andover — Mr. Powys Mr. H. Berkeley — Mr. King King Mr. Ellice, jun. Mr. Wykeham Martin Mr. C. Forster Mr. Layard — Colonel Lowther Mr. Ewing .. Mr. Greaves Mr. Beamish Mr. Moffatt — Sir John Trollope Mr. Augustus Smith Colonel Clifford Mr. Shafte Mr. Marshall Colonel Kingscote .. Mr. Knightley Lord Hartington The Attorney-General Lord Bury Mr. R. W. Crawford — Colonel Taylor Hon. T. Calthorpe — Sir J. Fergusson Baron M. (e Rothschild — Hon. R. C. Hill Baron L. de Rothschild — Captain Lowther LAW LATIELLIGENCE.-April 18. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) DRUMMOND, COMMONLY CALLED VISCOUNTESS FORTH, V. DRUMMOND, CALLED VISCOUNT FORTH. This was the peiition of the wife, praying for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty, to which the re spondent did not answer. It appeared, however, that the Queen's Proctor deemed it advisable to intervene, as there were grounds for suspecting that there might be collu sion between the parties. Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Marshman were counsel for the petitioner; and the Attorney-General, Mr. Sergeant Pigott, and Dr. Spinks, in support of the plea of collusion. Mr. Marsham opened the pleadings, from which it appeared that the petition was filed in 1860, and it was on the record alleged that the petitioner had been guilty of adultery subsequently, and that she had been living in a state of adultery in different parts of the metropolis and the United States. Mr. Macaulay contended that the Queen's Proctor was not justified in alleging this misconduct, and should have limited his allegation to the charge of collusion. Sir C. Cresswell stated that the Queen's Proctor had acted under the instruction of the Court. Mr. Macaulay then stated that he was not in a position to prove the adultery of the respondent, and therefore the petition must be confined to a prayer for judicial separation. Under these circum stances he submitted that the collusion could not be pleaded according to the section of the act of last session, by which such plea was confined to peti tions for judicial separation. He stated also that the petitioner traversed the plea ou tho part of the Crown law officer, and was perfectly prepared to contest the question with the Queen's Proctor. Sir C. Cresswell said that he did not consider that he could interfere at that stage of the case, which must proceed. He would make his decree, which could be appealed against. Mr. Macaulay then stated the case. The respon dant was the son of the Earl of Perth, and the peti tioner, whose maiden name was Capel, was highly connected through both her parents. The marriage was solemnised in 1855, at St. Peter's, Pimlico, and they continued to cohabit until the latter end of 1858, when his conduct became so violent that Lady Forth was obliged to separate from him. From the time of the marriage until the separation Lord Forth continued the ill-treatment to Lady Forth, and also behaved with cruelty to the child, and violence towards her sister and other members of her family. They resided with her father and mother after the marriage, Lord Forth not having an establishment of his own, and it was during the absence of the former that the alleged acts of vio lence were committed. The conduct of Lord Forth was to be attributed, in all probability, to his in temperate habits, for some of the acts were of a nature that could not be referred to any other cause, and amongst those acts was a threat that he would contract a loathsome disease and communi cate it to the child of which Lady Forth was then pregnant. Mrs. Charlotte Mary Ce.pel, examined by Mr. Macaulay. She said she was the mother of the petitioner, and that she was present at the marriage in 1855. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Her daughter lodged at the house of a Mr. Clark, at 70, Park-street, Grosvenor-square, in October last. She went with Lady Forth to take the lodgings, and the latter did not say that they were for a Mr. and Mrs. Dearing. She did not believe that Mrs. Clark asked her for any reference. She could not say whether the lodgings were taken for Lady Forth alone, or for her and somebody else, and she would not swear to that matter. Mrs. Clark might have asked her who she was, but she did not recollect her having done so. Perhaps Lady Forth did. call herself Mrs. Dearing. She did not call herself Lady Forth, that she could answer for. She (witness) did not give any name. She did not give the name of Edwards, at least she did not recollect her having done so. She visited Lady Forth at these lodgings, and found a gentleman with her sometimes. She declined to give his name. Sir C. Cresswell informed witness that she must answer this question. Mrs. Capel—lt was Mr. Dearing. She believed he took his meals there, and on some occasions she was present when he did so. She never slept at these lodgings, but she sometimes remained till nine o'clock at night, and she left Mr. Dearing there. Lady Forth used to breakfast at one o'clock, and she saw Mr. Dearing breakfasting with her. Sir C. Cresswell—Did you hear from your daughter that she was living there? Mrs. Capel—l should say I did. Mr. Sergeant Pigott proceeded to examine the. witness to show that the same degree of intimacy subsisted between Lady Forth and Mr. Dearing in other lodgings, but the learned judge considered that after what the witness had already . deposed it was unnecessary to pursue the examination further in order to establish the plea of adultery against the petitioner. The lady then stated, in reply to Sergeant Pigott, that Lady Forth went to America in the spring of 1860, but the petition had been filed four months previously. By Mr. Macaulay—Lord Forth left her daugh ter at the end of 1858. Except for short intervals, they lived with her after the marriage, as Earl Perth gave them very little. Mr. Dearing was in troduced to her at Dieppe, and afterwards called on the family as an ordinary visitor. Before Lady Forth went to America she was not satisfied. There was no improper intimacy between her and Mr. Dearing. Lady Forth, who is a young lady of very fashion able and prepossessing appearance and manner, was examined by Mr. Macaulay at considerable length. She stated that she lived with Lord Forth until about two years and four months ago. After the marriage they went to Brussels, where they remained about a month, and after their return they went to live at her father's. Lord Forth was scarcely ever sober, and was in the habit of using language to her that was too frightful to be repeated. Before they went to Brussels, and in three days after the ma criage, he pro posed that should start for Brussels, to which she objected, saying that ,he could not go without means. They were in a brougham at the time, and he got out and desired her to go to a very bad place. At Brussels his conduct vas most cruel to her. They returned one night from the theatre, and Lord Forth was very drunk. She wanted him to go to bed, and he aimed a blow at her Which missed her, but was so violent as to break a marble slab which he struck. She was enciente at the time. During the whole time they were living together she was not able to go to church more than three times, as he would not allow her out of his sight. When she was reading the Bible at home he used to snatch it out.of her hands. In September, 1856, he used the most abusive language towards her, and was in the habit of getting into the greatest passions if al 2 r thing occurred to displease him. While she was pregnant he called her by some foul and blasph.,e' mous name, and threatened to murder her. He threatened also to blind her after the child W9O born, and then to send her to an improper house: The witness then proceeded to detail other acts of violence, such as dragging her out of her mothers bed, almost strangling her, and this conduct con tinued without intermission until their separation: After that event Lord Forth wanted to be reconciled to her, and she had an interview with him, but re fused to resume cohabitation with him. He then said that he would do all in his power to blacken her character. She deposed also to acts of violence, towards the child, her sister, and other members 01 her family. In reply to Sergeant Pigott, she said that she ha no separate property from her husband. Mrs. Capel was recalled, and corroborated several portions of Lady Forth's evidence, which closed the case for the petitioner. Sir C. Cresswell directed the case to stand over for argument on the legal point as to whether b e was justified in granting a separation when the fact of adultery on the part of the petitioner had been established. He intimated his opinion that the acts on the part of the respondent proved the alle gation of cruelty. WIDNELL V. WIDNELL. This was the petition of the wife, praying for dissolution of marriage with her husband, by rea son of his adultery and desertion for two years without reasonable cause. Dr. SVambey appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent was not represented by counsel. The parties were married in 1832, and cohabited in London till 1845, when the respondent went to a situation at a hosier's in Birmingham. The pets' tioner supported herself and child by her own in' dustry, and though the respondent returned to London in 1846 and set up in business in Newing' ton Butts, he refused to live with her. He had:in' terviews with the daughter, the only issue of the marriage, but frankly admitted to the petitioner that he did not intend to live with her again' Ultimately he formed an adulterous intercourse with a female, with whom he was at present living* The facts were proved, and the Court granted the _decree nisi, with costs against the respondent. COUNTRY MARKETS. MANCHESTER—APRIL 18. English wheat a moderate sale, at fully late rates, but other sorts offered for less money, and difficult to qu it ' Foreign flour, extra qualities, held for former prices; other kinds cheaper. Oats and oatmeal a slow sale, at about late rates. Beans and Indian corn firm. BIRMINGHAM—APRIL 18. At to-day's market there was a short supply of when., from the farmers, but the trade ruled dull, at is decline O' all qualities of both English and foreign. Barley, bean! oats, and pets maintained their value, but rather Ma"' inquired for. MELTON MOWBRAY—APRIL 16. There was a middling show of wheat to-day, which sol d at about the previous week's rates for all descriPti° ll ,,, °. Barley less inquired for, maintaining late rates. For the trade was very quiet. Prices :—White wheat, 566 Od to 60s Od ; red, 48s Od to 54s per 36 stone ; beari° scarce, but dear, at 52s to 56s for old ; new 40s per 3 8 tl4 barley, 40s to 44s for malting, and 28s to 34s per qr. I° grinding ; oats, 29s to 38s Od per 24 stone. CORK—APRIL 16. The following were the quotations this morning :.--" ll .; ea gs wheat, —s Od to —s 01; white, 26s Od to —s 0d; barley.' Od to :—s Od ; oats, 13s 6d to 16s Od. EDINBURGH GRAIN—APRIL 16. Wheat on the top 2s Od down average Os 3d down' Barley on the top is 3d down .average is Od dovio* Oats on the top Os 4d down... average is Od dow n ' Beans on the top is Od down, average is Od dosvoi Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... New wheat -12ths Barley . 2 0 10 5-12ths Oats 1 10 6 4-12tys Beans • 2 3 2 0-12th Total Supply and Sales. Wheat........ 1160 qrs Sold 796 qrs 8ar1ey........ 439 qrs Sold 361 qrs Oats 1784 qrs Sold 968 qrs Beans 225 qrs Sold 216 qrs DERBY SMITHFIELD—ArRu;IS. There was a good supply of fat beasts to-day, of veg best quality; the demand brisk, and a clearance effect ~,', A abort supply of sheep, mai n taini n g high prices. u-"" supply of calves plentiful; and fat pigs were in averag e supply. Beet 7ld to 71d Veal 6ld to 7J Mutton .... 9d to 91d Pork Lamb „ .—d to —d Rough fat, 5s 3d per s tone. Hides, 21d to 44d; calf skins, 5d to 6d. TILE MAILS. MAILS DUE. ... Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) .. .. - ' • ~ Apr il 18. (via Marseilles) May 1 3 . „. May 4. Do. Brazil and Cape Verds „ Buenos Ayres, Monte Video, Cuba and Mexico April .7. 17; 29 ' Canada, &c. (via L'derry) Cape of Good Hope, &c. .. • • MaY 3 g. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) April • Do (via Marseilles) Gibraltar (via Southampton) India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) April ' Do. A A p p ri l 1 ;9 6 8. : (via Marseilles) Apr il 26 ,,g India (Bombay), (via Southampton) w a April ' Do. (via Marseilles) .. Lisbon • • .. • . • • •• .. April -•"' Malta, Egypt, and Men (via Southampton) .. April 119' Do. (via Marseilles) .. APri l Vigo, and Oporto .. AO! "if: United States, California, &c. Apri,",; Weg , ern Coast of Atrica Madeira, Teneriffe West Indies and Pacific, Carthagena, Cuba, &c. April [ADVERTISEMENT.j—Among the numerous extreep nary cures without medicine of indigestion, (dYePeP os e flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver e ct o plaints, cough, asthma, consumption and debility, effect by Du Barry's delicious health restoring Revalentit A bica Feed, the following are not the least remarkable:a Cure No. 47,121.—" Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, of Nof ie r. Vicarage, Waltham-cross, Herta ; a cure of extreme o 0 vousness, indigestion, gatherings, low spirits, and fancies." Cure No. 48,314.—" Miss Elizabeth Ye? '" 9 ,01 Gateacro, near Liverpool ; cure of ten years' dyspelo 6 ./ all the horrors of nervous irritability." Cure No. 3,741 Thirteen years cough, indigestion, and g e neral deb has been removed by Du Barry's excellent Rele:4l. Arabica Food. James Porter, Athol-street, r e i o d Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravet B perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappoill o o4 and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's t in which, at a few pence per day, saves Se times its et. o k other remedies, removing effectually, without purfrod constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilioll! co tO liver complaints and all their consequences. Certw i jo, No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew pp MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorlanet Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers e . f,...., 13 Y 0 f rious and injurious imitations offered under a varieutio false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited bY t ot high Court of Chancery under a penalty of 15,000 er c so Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the prete li pti that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and thil t i jie. Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du B a t, and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrAPP„ f t Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article lip, expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tuill 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. 11s.; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 400. c ipt 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on rfits , of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 7i; b bioo gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and C0.;,. „ 1' Or 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside; 63 and lou , bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, BishoP s r(lik street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips an,„ei tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King Wilhaursi — City ; at 127 High Holborn; and all grocers. BITHS. BARRY.—On the 16th hist ß , at Tottenham, the wife ° Barry, Esq., of a daughter. 1/ e e f BECTIER.—On the 16th inst., at Hollybrook, Skibb er Ireland, the Lady Emily Becher, of a daughter. „or CnicnEszEn.—On the 16th inst., at 11,Brunswick - s 4 " 0 1 Brighton, the wife of Fitzwarrine Chichester, Esq'' son and heir. MARRIAGES. JAMES—HOLE.---On the 16th inst., at St. Miarkts! aro, wood, Henry M. James, Esq., of Exeter, to Fele c et t p ()) third daughter of the late Rev. Geo. Hole, preberiall Exeter and rector of Chulmleigh. WATsoN—WINTER.—On the 18th inst. at at St. 1 , 31 %, t° Piccadilly, Mr. John Watson, of New. Oxford-sly!' Martha, second daughter of James Winter, E5c17, 3 00 4 . ° dlestone, Surrey, and Wgraour-street, St. "'— Westminster. DEATHS. APLIN.—On the 14th inst., in London, Vice jjA°llll Aplin. BUCKSTON.—On the 17th inst. at Sutton-ow -the-hill' the Rev. German Buckston, aged 63. •'- Thge CoLLrs.—On the 17th inst., at 59, Russell.square,„rt Collis. Esq., late Senior xtegistrar of the High Lioo" ChanCery. DALYELL.—At her house in Edinburgh, Miss DalYeVot youngest daugLtcr of the late Sir Robert Dalye'', " of Binns. h ob, GittEN A.wL...—On the 15th inst., at Southsea, Vila" pl,l widow of the late Commander John P. CronlaW , aged 79. __••••,-"" • -- __- LONDON : Printed and Published by 3=130 YO l3- notir No. 112, Strand, Pr inter, at TILE SUN Office, No. 1 12, A / 0 0, In the Precinct of the Savoy, In the county of Mi Friday, April 19, . 1801. t Est X t t i Of A at tst the den Per cea/ 14 ( :tut] the 1 boati • 1 11081 Of E 4( OLD and and Eat o Cata I.O N , ken I`% tare, oot dillei .. P) 29. 9 reg.', aebt our 'ore blot( P Lon. 'bee ab oN Loaf 01 be elle . E 3 ...Ti 41.114 ( ken (Ow the T 1 The nen ti on The gmd Vrt br( nCI dreg 411(