The Sun. — London, England, 1853-03-29 00:00:00

which Were passed soon afterwards, had the effect of intro ducing a stricter practice than had previously been obtained upon, bills of this nature. By a subsequent order it was provided that no bill to disallow a marriage on the ground of adultery shall be received without a clause prohibiting the marriage of the offending parties. But this clause is struck out in committee or on the report, except in very peculiar cases. In Dr. Campbell's case, where the adul tery was incestuous, a provision to that effect was inserted in the Lords ; but the Commons refused to ratify - it. XXVIII. Since the passing of Lord Loughborough's orders, all applications for divorces a vincul o have been sup ported by ecclesiastical sentences ; and all have been sup ported by verdicts at law, or accompanied by c ircumstances which justified or explained the want o f such verdicts. Moreover, it appears that during the time when the dicial usiness of that house was u nder the guidance of LoLrd Eldon and Lord Redesdale, it was by no means un usual to examine the petitioner ; though for the last twenty years, we believe, there is no instance of such an examina tion having occurred. In Heneage's Divorce Bill the per sonal attendance of the petitioner was dispensed with, upon proof that his domestic affliction affected his health so much that he was obliged to go to a warmer climate ; and in Llewellyn's case, in the session of 1851, the Peers refused to examine the petitioner, though tendered for that purpose. - S(IX. Divorce bills in the Commons were originally determined in the whole house. But that unseemly and inconvenient practice was put an end to on the motion of Mr. Labouchere, in the year 1840, when the house referred them to a select committee of nine members, of whom three are a quorum. An instruction is given to the com mittee that they do hear counsel and examine witnesses for the bill ; and aho that they do hear counsel and examine witnesses against the bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by counsel or produce witnesses. From the words of the instruction, it is considered that the prosecu tor is bound to examine witnesses, or otherwise substan tiate the allegations of the bill ; and that the last part of the instruction only is permissive in reg ard to parties opposing the bill. The proceedings in the Commons have acquired by this change a more judicial character; but it seems absurd that a case which has been already proved three times should be proved again. XXX. - Under ordinary circumstances, a divorce bill may be obtained at the suit of the husband, but not at the suit of the wife. It may be obtained almost as a matter of right, at the snit of the husband, when the wife is con victed of infidelity, and the conduct of the husband is irreproachable. But it cannot be obtained at the suit of the wife, except in cases of aggravated enormity, such, for instance, as incestuous intercourse with the wife's rela tions, which precludes the possibility of future reconcilia l tion. In four cases of this description, Parlia.mant has interfered. Unless, however, there are circumstances of aggravation, constituting an exception to the general rule, it has always declined to do so. Two propositions may therefore be affirmed. First, that the wife has no title to ask for a divorce a vineulo when she is aggrieved only by adultery ; and secondly, that the husband, aggrieved only •by adultery, can demand, as it were ex dibito Justieice, a divorce a vineulo, unless his own conduct has been censur able. XXXI. The provisions of a divorce bill are in the dis cretion of Parliament; and in this respect there is some ad vantage in bringing these questions under the jurisdiction of the Legialature,o.s other courts are bound by rules. Parliament may mould and adapt its relief according to the facts and exigencies of the case. In former times, it was asked to provide, by express enactment, th a t th e di vorce w if e s h ou ld not be left in a state of destitution. According to the modern practice, this is a matter that is ordinarily effected by private arrangement ; but it is never neglected. "There is in the House of Commons," Mr. Macqueen observes (and the observation is perfectly correct), "a functionary called `The Ladies' Friend' (an office generally filled by some member distinguished for his attention to the private busi ness of the house), - whose duty it is to see that the husband petitioning for divorce makes some suitable but moderate provision for the divorced wife. This he attends to on all occasions ; not by inserting the intended provisions of the bill itself, for fear it should be rejected by the other House of Parliament, but by taking care that it is legally secured to her, before the bill has pa sse d th roug h comm itt ee . Mall. The bill, as it is finally settled, seldom contains more than five clauses. The first dissolves the marriage ; the second enables the petitioning husband to marry again; the third entitles him to all the rights of a husband as re gards the property of any after-taken wife, and gives to such wife, as regards his property, the rights of a surviv ing widow ; the fourth deprives the divorced wife of any rights that, but for the act, she might have had as his widow, in the event of her survivorship; and the fifth ex cludes the husband from any rights which he might other wise have claimed in any property acquired by his wife, after the dissolution of the marriage. When the wife can obtain a divorce against the husband, the property-clauses are vice versa substantially the same as those which are found in divorce bills by the husband against the wife. Her they protect, and him they exclude, as regards any property belonging to her, which is not affected by a pre - vions settlement, XXXIII. Having thus explained what the law is, as well with regard to divorces d mens 4 et thoro, as also with regard to divorces et vinculo matrintonii, it is now our duty to submit to your Majesty the alterations and improve ments which, according to the judgment of your Majesty's Commissioners, may be made in it with advantage, and also with safety. "It must be admitted," (to adopt the language of an eminent jurist,) "that the intrinsic difficul ties of the subject are exceedingly great. The dangerous extremes are absolute and universal indissolubility on the one hand, which has been found to be productive of a general connivance at infidelity, and consequently of a general disoluteness of manners, and on the other, a con siderable facility of divorce in cases very difficult to be de fined—a practice (to say nothing of other evil consequences) which would be at variance with the institution of marri age, intended chiefly to protect children from the incon stancy of parents, and next to guard women from the in constancy of husbands, who, if divorce were procurable for any but clearly defined and most satisfactorily proved facts, would be enabled, as soon as they were tired of their wives, to make the situation of the helpless female so un easy, that they must consent to a divorce. To make the dissolution of marriage in the proper case alike accessible to all is one of the objects to which, in great cities, and in highly civilised countries, it is hardest to point out a safe road." These just observations should be carefully borne in mind in any alteration to be made in our law. XXXIV. Four points will have to be considered. First, the causes for which divorces should be granted, and whe ther they should be confined to a partial separation, or ex tended to a dissolution of the marriage bond. Secondly, the grounds or pleas in defence which should operate as a bar to them. Thirdly, the terms upon which they should be granted, and the legal consequences with which they should be attended. And, fourthly, the courts and mode of procedure by which such questions should be tried and determined. XXXV. The causes of divorce d mend et thoro are, adultery and cruelty. There can hardly be a doubt that both these causes ought still to be allowed. The for mer is plainly so gross a violation of the marriage con tract, and so utter a destruction of all the Objects for which the contract was made, that reason and re ligion alike proclaim that the innocent party should no longer be constrained to live with the offender, when he, in truth, by his own misconduct, has him self put an end to those engagements, which must al ways be considered, in a Christian country, as mutual and reciprocal. The latter, as interpreted by the ecclesiastical judges, amounting in fact, to a reasonable apprehension of danger to life, limb, or health, renders it impossible , to discharge the duties of married life ; and the duty of self preservation must obviously take precedence of the duties of marriage, which are secondary both in commencement and obligation. XXXVI. It has sometimes been urged, that cruelty should have a more extended signification; that other causes of divorce, or, at least, of separation from bed and board, should be allowed, such as mutual dislike, incom patibility of temper, neglect, severity, and repeated pro vocation ; and that these separations might either be vo luntary, if the parties were forbidden to seek such a disso lution of the marriage contract as would leave them at liberty to marry again. We cannot assent to the sugges tions. The arguments against them are put so forcibly by Lord Stowell, and Hume and Paley, that, in the judgment of your Majesty's commissioners, they are absolutely unan swerable, " To vindicate the policy of the law" says Lord Stowell, " is no necessa r y p ar t o f th e o ffi ce of a judge; but if it were, it would not be difficult to show that the law in this respect has acted with its usual wisdom and humanity, with that true wisdom and that real hu manity that regards the general interests of mankind. For though, in particular cases, the repugnance of the law to dissolve the obligations of matrimonial cohabitation may operate with great severity upon individuals, yet it must be carefully remembered, that the general happiness of the married life is secured by its indissolubility. When people understand that they must live together, except for a very few reasons known to the law, they learn to soften by mu tual accommodation that yoke which they know they can not shake off ; they become good husbands and good wives, from the necessity of remaining husbands and w i ves ; f or necessity is a powerful mast er in teaching the duties which it imposes. If it were once understood, that upon mutual disgust married persons might be legally separated, many couples who now pass through the world with mutual com fort, with attention to their common offspring, and to the moral order of civil society, might at this moment have been living in a state of mutual unkindness, in a state of estrangement from their common offspring, and in a state of the most licentious and unreserved immorality. In this case, as in many others, the happiness of some individuals must be sacrificed to the greater and more general good." Farther on he adds, " And if it be complained that by (the) inactivity of the courts much injustice may be suf fered, andmuch misery produced, theanswer is, that courts ofjustice do not pretend to furnish cures for all the miseries_ of human lif e. They redress or punish grossviol m ati n on . o r f: duty, but th ey go no further ; they cannotmake tuons ; and, as the happiness of the world depends ul e ion v! 'its virtue, there may be muc h unhappiness in it which human laws cannot undertake to remove. XXXVII. Hu me and Paley have equally well shown the danger of recognising, or in any way encouraging petition ing for divorce, unless it i s required by some paramount necessity, as in conjugal infidelity or outrageous cruelty. In the first place, they contend that it `would be manifestly inconsistent with the dut y which thedutybe parents owe to their wtehlel scoria p a lace s by , t t h h e e ir y children, and united care. t. as the father cohabitation us lee that would doneto the point out the h as extreme injustice as well • she wife, since n,..and the comfort of a r i ght, he third their to • the gra titude of her childre n, s almost necessaril d society, of both of which she , . 1 ePrived, by her her h us nana lallll y. place, dismission fropa ten d to create a Be they say that it wou ld _ paration of in terests,be the source of endless rieeeeeh, which must being not secure of a nd • • for the wife, h er establish meat,suspicions ; driving some separate end or project - would still be peculation on one side, .4a mistrust on this would beget on the other. And in the fourth place, it would d es t roy the necessity for mutual c ompl iance, which, founded as a is on a sense of duty or a sense of interest, constitutes , in .; in fact, the best foundation for mu tu al happiness. " W need not, therefore, be afraid of drawing the maniageknot which chiefly subsists by, friendship, the closest possible. The amity between the persons, when it is solid and sin cere, will rather gain . by it ; and where it is waver ing and uncertain, this is the ,best expedient for fixing it. How many frivolous quarrels and disgusts are there, which people of common prudence endeavour to forget , when they lie under a necessity of passing their lives toge ther, but which soon would-be deadly hatred, were they pursued to the utmost, under the prospect of an easy separation." XXXVIII. For these reasons, we think that our laws, while allowing divorces d mensci et thoro in cause of adul tery and outrageous cruelty, have wisely denied the like privileges to mere dislike, contrariety of temper, severity, neglect, or voluntary arrangements. There is another cause, however, which so entirely frustrates all the objects of the marriage union, that it may reasonably be doubted whether it should not be put on the same footing as eases of cruelty. We allude to wilful and obstinate desertion. Our old Reformers considered that this was so gross a breach of all the obligations, human and divine, which the husband and wife owe to each other, that in that case they would have allowed the deserted party to enter again into fresh nuptials. At the same time they were so impressed with the importance of keeping the contract unbroken that, be fore the complainant could obtain a dissolution of it, every kind of means was previously to be exhausted, exhortation and counsel, and even punishment, to bring the offender back to his duty ; and in case of his absence, an interval was prescribed of two or three years, for the chance of his return, that nothing might be done with levity or rashness. In other Protestant countries that offence, when properly established, is considered a scriptural ground of divorce, even d vincula matrimonii. In Scotland, also, if it be wil fully perseyered in for four years, followed by a judicial requisition of conjugal rights on the part of the complain ant, it warrants a dissolution of the marriage contract. In this country desertion must be coupled with cruelty before it can entitle the abandoned party to a sentence of separa tion ; but in reason, in principle, and in its moral conse quences, it can hardly be distinguished from cruelty itself. We are, therefore, of opinion upon all these grounds, and especially for the purpose of protecting the wife from the wanton abandonment, as well as from the infidelity and tyranny of the husband, that wilful desertion, like adultery and cruelty, should enable her to ask judicial relief, if not by a sentence of divorce a mend et thoro, at least by an award of proper alimony for her separate maintenance where the desertion has continued for a period to be limited by the Legislature. XXXIX. Though these three causes may justify a sepa ration from bed and board, it does not fellow that they will authorise a dissolution of the marriage bond, so as to leave either party free to marry again ; for it is that liberty in which the danger and mischief of divorces principally con sist. Adultery may be, and in Protestant countries it is, generally, deemed a sufficient reason for rescinding thel union, because it is an offence which destroys altogether the primary objects of the married state, by introducing,- in some instances, a confusion of offspring ; by cutting off, in others, all hope of succession ; and by diverting, in all, the affections and feelings into strange channels, which , reason and religion forbid them to flow in. But these evils ' cannot necessarily be predicated as the certain results of the other causes; for in them at least there is always a possibility of future reconciliation ; and if it be possible, it is for the interests, the happiness, the well-being of society —especially that 9 part of it which is most exposed and least protected—the women and children—that in such a matter the door of reconciliation should not be closed. We are, therefore, of opinion that divorces a vinculo should not be extended beyond cases of adultery. XL. Divorces a mends et thoro should, for the causes above adverted to, be allowed to the wife as well as to the husband, and desertion should entitle the wife to a remedy by way of alimony ; but whether divorces a vinculo should be granted at the suit of the wife with the same facilities as at the suit of the husband, is a question which has elicited much difference of opinion. There are four instances in which wives have succeeded. in procuring divorces a vinculo from Parliament ; but in these the husbands were guilty of other offences besides adultery, which were held either to preclude or absolve the complainants from further cohabitation. In two the adultery was incestuous. In the third there was profligacy, deceit, abandonment, and the grossest injury done to the woman which villany could inflict. In the fourth there was bigamy. With these exceptions, there is no example of a divorce a vinculo being granted by Parliament at the suit of the woman. The applications which have been made on the ground of adultery, 'and that alone, have always failed. In Mrs. Teush's case, Lord Eldon observed that he never recollected a more favourable representation given "of any woman ; but yet on general grounds of public morality, he felt it his painful duty to give a negative to the original motion,", that the bill should be read a second time. In Mrs. Mof-, fatt's case, however, he seems to have changed his opinion,' and moved the second reading of that lady's bill, saying that "he saw no reason why a woman was not as much entitled to sue for divorce as a man." But in this opinion he was overruled by Lord Chancellor Brougham, who re marked " that it should be a case extraordinary in its enor mity to entitle the female to such relief. He begged their lordships would look at such a proceeding as this ; every man who desired to get rid of a wife has only to go and seek a mistress, and, as the natural consequence of such conduct, to desert his wife, and therefore he instantly . drives her to an application to the house ; a divorce is ob tained, and his purpose is secured. Ile thought the best, protection which could be imparted to the bonds of matri mony was, to abide by our ancient practice with respect to such cases. Parliament could afford the wife no remedy without at the same time setting the husband free from those shackles which it was his object to get rid of." We concur in the conclusion ; for it is to be remembered, ac cording to the just observation of Dr. Johnson, that "the; difference between the adultery of the husband and the adultery of the wife" (socially speaking) "is boundless." It is on this account that a divorce a vinculo has been al lowed in one case and not in the other ; and if it were al lowed in both cases alike, we fear it would lead to all the evils of voluntary agreement for terminating the union. Such an opportunity, with the ill-disposed, would 'not. be lost; should it be conceded, there is reason to apprehend that in many instances the husband would form a second connection in order to get rid of the first. According to the testimony of Chancellor Kent, it has produced that re. suit in some of the states of America. In cases of incest, . bigamy, or the liker, it might be proper to give the wife the power to institute a suit for a divorce, et vinculo monii, 'but as a general rule, and in all other cases of ag gravated enormity, which may possibly arise, but cannot be defined, we think that the remedy should be left for tho Legislature, and for that alone. Th e re li e f gran t e d t o Miss Wharton, Miss Knight, and Miss Turner, constitute precedents which will assuredly be followed by Parliament when special circumstances demand its interference. XLI. The next point which we have to consider is the ground of defence that should operate as a bar in a suit for divorce. 'When both parties are in the same guilt neither can claim the vindication of a law which each has broken, nor reasonably complain of the breach of a contract which each has violated. When one of them has connived at the guilt of the other, that connivance involves criminality, if it be more than mere negligence, over-confidence, and dul ness of comprehension—if it amounts, in fact, to consent, acquiescence, or intentional occurrence ; and, therefore, in point of law, as well as in point of morals, it bars relief on account of adultery which itself has occasioned or allowed to take place. And when the parties are reconciled to each other, and the guilt is forgiven by subsequent cohabi tation, it would be clearly impolitic, in the highest degree, to reopen a matter which has thus been settled by the parties themselves. We are therefore of opinion that re crimination, connivance, and condonation, should still operate as pleas in bar, either for divorced mend et thoro, or for divorce a vinculo matrimonii. In these respects we would leave the law as it is ; but, with reference to recri mination, we would carry it further. At present the husband is not barred from a sentence of divorce on account of the wife's adultery merely because he him self has neglected or violated the most sacred obli gations of the conjugal bond, as in the case of cruelty or desertion, but only when he has been guilty of a like offence. The cruelty and desertion of the hus band, however, is so gross a violation of his marital duties, and exposes the wife to so many temptations, that even if she fails in fidelity to him, we think that he is the last person who should be h ear d to complain of it. We would therefore recommend that gross cruelty, and wilful desertion should be recognised as pleas in bar to a hus band's suit for separation or divorce, on what ground sd,- eller the relief might be sought. XLII. We have n ex t' to consider the terms upon which divorces should be granted, and the legal consequences with which they should be attended. But little alteration ap peared to be required in this respect as regards divorces mensel et thoro. The first important matter is to secure to the wife, during the period of her separation, a proptir provision by way of maintenance ; and this has been done with a judicious discretion, according to the circumstances and condition of the husband. There is one rule, howi ever, with reference to the costs of suit which is somewhatt questionable ; for it is founded on a state of things'nP longer existing. The rule is, that "upon general princi ples the costs of the wife must be defrayed by the husband, who is presumed to possess the whole property." Nov, this presumption is sometimes erroneous; for, by the me dern usage, the wife is entitled, as often as not, to sepa rate property, independent of her husband ; we therefore think that this rule should be no longer imperative. It would be better to leave the question of costs, like the question of alimony, in the discretion of the court which tries the case. XLIII. With regard to divorces a vinculo matrimonii, there may be more difficulty. As the law now stands, Parliament can take care that justice is done in every case. Its power is supreme 2 • and if, in this matter, it is to dele gate that pow er to another tribunal, which is strictly judi cial, as we propose it should be, it must, on the ono hand, invest that tribunal with a large discretion in adjusting the rights of parents and children, while it ought, on the other, to restrain that discretion within clearly ascertained and well-defined limits. As a general rule, the future rights, interests, obligations, and liabilities, both of the husband and wife, against each other, should cease altogether with the sentence of divorce ; and for that purpose the sentence should contain provisions similar in principle to those which are usually inserted in divorce bill. Further than this, the terms or the decree cannot properly be prescribed. Every case will have to stand on its own merits, and it must be regulated by its own specialities : for which reason the Court should be clothed with ample authority to do com plete justice. It cannot vary, modify, or confirm any pre vious settlements—so far as they affect the relative inte rests of husband and wife—to secure such provision for the wife and children as circumstances may require, and to decide in whose custody the children shall remain, and how and in what manner they shall be brought up and edu cated. With respect to the parents, the law should regard them as single persons, relatively to each other, from that time forward. With respect to the children, they should be made wards of court, and placed entirely under its. guar dianship and control. XLIV. The fourth and last point which wo have to con sider is, the court or courts and mode of procedure by which that question should be tried and determined. Three tri bunals must now be resorted to : a court of law for damages against the adulterer ; an ecclesiastical court for a divorce a menet et thoro • and the Imperial Parliament for a dis solving statute. The great expense and the long delay of these proceedings is a grievous hardship and oppression to individuals, and they amount in many cases to a denial of justice. Even in an unopposed suit, the minimum expense of obtaining a sentence of divorce in the Consistory Court of London would vary from 1201. to 1401. at the least, and the case would occupy about two months. If it were opposed, the expense would range from 3001. to 5001. and upwards (in heavy cases to much more), and it would take from one to two or three years before it was decided. The proceedings also do not terminate here ; but there is an appeal to the Court of Arches, and from thence to the Judicial Committee. The expense of an action at law will depend in a great measure on the nature of the case, and the extent to which it is contested. The expenses in Par liament, exclusive of counsel's fees, charges for witnesses, and the solicitor's own bill, which amount, no doubt, to a considerable sum, average about 2001. With the other charges they would possibly be doubled ; so that the total rod un i der the most favourable circumstances, of obtain thana divorce a vinculo matrimonii can hardly be less 700/. or 800/. ; an d w h en th e ma tt er i s muc h liti ga t e d, atvvretu probably re ac h some th ousan d s . I n S co tl an d th e thata cost of r esc i n di ng a marr i age i s sa id t o b e 20/ ., a nd when there is no opposition, 201. will suffice. In Scot land, also, it is not a privilege for the rich, but a right for litigant between W all ; and it i s not unworthy of notice, that out of 94 cases N e o r vembe r 1830, and November, 1841, the parties e alm os t all of the lower classes. saryXLbVy. PliTahretahmree tribunals which are thus rendered neces entaryregu,ations for a divorce a vinculo provided would not be required mitted to a court in w hi ch the country h as confidence. The object' of having such numerous proceedings appears to have been to satisfy the Leg,islature that there is no collusion between the parties ; that the suit is a bond fide one ; that diitssturb consequences. a union so sacred And the whole case has been thoroughly an d f u ll y examined and proved, beforet n h d e s L o egi im sl p a o t rt ur a e nl ill in nature,yinetittsheseprecfr which they were and sare anywthineg n u t t e satisfactory, 1 even for cases, e the pprpose recovered l arge d amages at the damageswherethehas hav e b een merely nominal, the b ill f has succeeded. In suc h a state of things the only fair ere pc" to lug drawn from th em is, that one tribunal which can satisfy itself of the proper re lief to be given or withheld is better than three which dis , trust each other.. The verdict at law is practically value less and if the proceedings before the Legislature were as regular and searching as those in a court of justice, the ecclesiastical sentence would be so too. XLVI. We are, therefore, of opinion that in this, as in every case which has to be submitted to judicial investiga tion, one tribunal (subject to au, appeal in the event of a miscarriage) is or ought to be sufficient of itself for admi nistering to the suitors complete justice, without having recourse to extraneous aid. But to prevent collusion great care would be required. The testimony should be oral, principally at least if not entirely, instead of being taken as it is now in the ecclesiastical courts, upon written an swers to written interrogatories, where the second and every succeeding question is propounded to the witness without the propounder knowing what answer has been given to the first ; and where the party who cross-examines the witness knows nothing whatever of the examination in chief, except so far as he is able to conjecture from the plea upon which the witness is to be examined, and his name. Although, however, it is desirable that the' evi dence should be principally oral, there may be great advan tage in verifying tha facts in the first instance, either by the affirmation of the party or by written depositions. In Scot land the prosecutor is bound to take an oath which is called the oath de ealumnid, pledging his belief to the correctness of the suit, and disclaiming at the same time all collusion in the matter. A condition of this kind might not unreason ably be required as a guarantee for the passing of a divorce suit in England; for when the Parliamentary safeguards are taken away, collusion will be the mischief most easy to to practise, and most difficult to guard against. If the evidence is oral, it is equally important that it should be taken down at the time by an officer of the court and in the presence of the parties, "not ordinarily by question or answer, but in the form of a narrative ;" and when completed it should be read over to the witness and signed by him as his testi mony. In addition to the evidence so taken, the judge should have the power of ordering other witnesses to be produced, who might,' in his opinion, throw light on the subject, and also of examining the parties themselves. ft.LVII. We propose to adhere to the rule that the mere confession of the defendant, unaccompanied by other cir cumstances, should not of itself be sufficient proof of con jugal infidelity. This rule has been acted upon for ages in courts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and forms the subject of an express canon (No. 105) passed in 1603, for the regu lations of prooeedingi upon causes matrimonial. It has been also recognised, and, in some instances, very rigidly enforced, by the House of Lords ; but with this ra tional modification at the same time—that whenever collateral circumstances appear, tending to the proof of adultery, evidence by confession will be received in confirmation. Such collateral circumstances, however, must be primarily established, so as to lay a foun dation for the reception of the evidence by confession, which, when so supported, is not only receivable, but is indeed the strongest evidence that can be well imagined of guilty consummation. XLVIII. If the power of granting a divorced vinculo is removed from 'Parliament, it will be necessary to determine to what court the poiver shall be transferred. Your Ma jesty's commissioners have experienced great difficulty in solving this Tiestion. The courts of law, the Privy Coun cil, the ecclesiastical courts, and the courts of chancery have all been suggested.. There are objections to each and all of these proposals. Divorce is a subject which requires care and time for the due investigation of it ; and, there fore, it should be referred to the calm deliberation of one or more judges, rather than to the verdict of a jury. The Privy Council is essentially a c o ur t o f a pp ea l, w ith differ ent judges sitting from time to time, and with no machi nery for coodUcting the investigation until the cause is ripe for hearing. In the'Ecclesiastical Court there would be some advantage in having a bar well acquainted with the subject ; but until those reforms and improvements are made in them which have been so often recommended by both Houses of Parliament, we doubt whether they would be likely to give satisfaction if the determination of such a question as that of divorce a vineulo matrimonii weresnow confided to them for - the first time. The Court of Chan cery in its present state' has all the elements of a good tribunal for dealing_with this matter. Its form of plead ings, and its mode of procedure, as regulated. and improved by the recent statute, would readily be adapted to a ll th e suggestions which we have pointed out above. But there is one grqat objection to it—and that is, that the entire dissolution of the marriage bond ought hardly to be left to the unaided decision of a single judge. We feel the force of the objection, and we think that in this matter a new tribunal should - be constituted, consisting of a judge of the Court of 'Chancery, a common law judge, and a judge of the Ecclesiastical Court. Such a tribunal would combine the high principles of equitable jurisprudence with the knowledge Of the civil as well as of the common law, and with that 'familiarity' with the mode of taking evidence which would be essential to the working of the new system, XLIX. We would, therefore, recommend that applica -tions for divorces-a vinculo matrimonii, and all causes ma trimoninl,.should be submitted in future to a new tribu nal, consisting of a vice-chancellor, a common law judge, and ajudge of the Ecclesiastical Court, and that they should sit for the purpose of trying these questions at specified times in different parts of the year. We would also recommend that there should be no appeal from their decision except to the House of Lords ; and we think there would be convenience in directing that diverce s a mend et thoro should likewi se b e re f erre d the tame tribunal. Sir John Stoddart's evidence on the subject is clear and im portant. Do yeti considet he was asked) that a court con stituted of judges of the common law and equity, and in cluding consistorial civilian judges, would be a better tri- , bunal than any one individual judge for sifting cases of this kind ?—Certainly I should think so. And that the proper course of proceeding is by a viva voce examination ?—Yes. Under such rules as to examining upon the libel as they might think fit to lay dawn for. their practice ?—Yes. What would be the use. of having two courts, one to divorce a mensa et thoro, and the other to divorce a vin culo I—l do not know that two courts would be necessary, but I say that the present mode of proceeding to obtain a separation a inensa et thoro is not sufficiently stringent, in my opinion, to obtain a divorce a vinculo. Whether there should be ant alteration, or not in the present proceeding for a divorce a ntensa et thoro is a separate question, but if there were a proceeding f or a di vorce a vincula before a single judge, or even before several judges, I think the pro r-teeding should be very different from that which is now followed in the spiritual courts." L. We cannot bring this report to a close without advert ing to two questions of immense importance, which are closely connected with the subject submitted to us, though they do not fall within the terms of the inquiry proposed for our consideration. The one is, whether here, as in Scot land, the parties whose guilt has occasioned tho divorce d vinculo matrimonii shall be restrained from intermarry ing. The other, whether a Scotch divorce, upon grounds not allowed by the laws of England, shall operate as a dis solution for all . purposes of an English marriage. With regard to the former question, there is a standing order of the House of Lords, which makes it imperative on any , person petitioning for a . bill for a divorce a vinculo to in sert a provision in it prohibiting the person whose marriage with the petitioner shall be dissolved to intermarry with any offending party, on account of whose adultery such marriage shall be dissolved ; but this clause, notwithstand ing many struggles to ba,ve it retained, is usually struck out without resistance in the regardcommittee. Pith to the latter question, a Scotch divorce of an English mar riage, where the parties are bond fide domiciled in Scot land, will be binding and valid in the courts of that coun try upon any question of Scotch law affecting themselves, their children, or their . property ; but the courts of Eng land will not recognise, in some cases, the binding validity of a Scotch divorce, since an English marriage, being a contract which, like other personal contracts, must be in terpreted according to the law of the country in which it was made, cannot be dissolved by any proceeding in the courts of any other country. for English purposes. The anomalies arising from this conflict between the law of the ,two countries are strange and distressing to many families, and a remedy, if possible, ought speedily to be provided for them. We feel, however, that both these questions involve so many and such important considerations of national policy, and they relate to matters which, in some respects ' are so far removed from the scope of our inquiry, that we forbear to do more than call attention to them. ir. Having now Considered the law of divorce in its different bearings, it may be convenient to sum up briefly the alterations and improvements which we think may be made in it with prudence and safety. Our suggestions die— That the distinction between divorce a mensel et thoro and divorce a vinculo matrinionii shall still . be maintained. That the grounds for divorce a newel et thoro shall be conjugal infidelity and gross cruelty. That wilful desertion shall also be a ground for divorce a mensal et thoro, or else shall entitle the abandoned wife to obtain froth her husband a proper maintenance by way of alimony. That divorces d menses et thoro may be obtained by the wife for the above-mentioned causes, as well as by the hus band. That divorces a vinculo shall be allowed for adultery, and for adultery only. That divorces a viuculo shall only be granted on the suit of the husband, and not (as a 'general rule) on the suit of the wife. _ _ That the wife, however, may also apply for a divorce d vinculo in cases of aggravated enormity, such as incest or bigamy. That recrimination, contrivance, and condonation shall, if proved, be deemed and treated as bars to the suit. That recrimination shall include any of the grounds for which divorces may be obtained a mensa et thoro. That the existing mode of obtaining a divorce d vinculo shalt no longer be continued. That a verdict at law, and an ecclesiastical sentence, shall not be considered as preliMinary conditions which must be complied with before it can be obtained. That a new tribunal shall be constituted to try all ques tions of divorce. That all matrimonial questions also which are now deter mined in the Ecclesiastical Courts shall be transferred to the same tribunal. _ _ _ That this tribunal shall consist of a vice-chancellor, a common law judge, and a judgeof the Ecclesiastical Courts. That the party who seeks a divorce, whether it bo a di vorce a menet et thoro or a divorce a vinculo matrimonti, shall pledge his belief to the truth of the case, and that there is no collusion between himself and wife. That the evidence shall be oral, and taken down in the presence of the parties. That in - general the process, practice, and pleading shall conform to the process, practice, and pleading of the Court of Chancery, as recently improved, with such additions as may be beneficially derived from the ecclesiastical system. That the rules of evidence shall be the same as those which prevail in the temporal courts in the kingdom. That the judges shall have the power of examining the parties, and also of ordering.any witnesses to be produced, who, in their opinion, may throw light on the question. That the court shall be intrusted with a large discretion in prescribing whether any and what provision shall be made to the wife, in adjusting the rights which she and her husband may respectively have in each other's property, and in providing for the guardianship and maintenance of the children. That there shall bo only ono appeal from a decree of the court, and that the appeal shall be carried to the House of Lords. We humbly submit this, our first report, to your Ma jesty's royal consideration. CAMPBELL. STEPHEN LUSITINGTON. BEAUMONT.. SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE. WILLIAM PAGE WOOD. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE. LORD REDESDALE'S OPINION ; AND STATEMENT OF HIS REASONS FOR NOT ENTIRELY CONCURRING IN THE PRECEDING REPORT. In considering the present state of the law of divorce, it appears that the law of England holds marriages to be in dissoluble ; that a divorce Ic vinculo can only be obtained by getting an exceptional law made for each case ; that this most objectionable mode of proCeeding has been allowed little more than 150 years ; and that it has necessarily been confined4o the wealthier classes, from the expense attend ing it.' ' With.these facts before me, I felt it my duty to inquire carefully into the grounds on which such divorces have hitherto been unknown to our law, and into the compara tively moral and social benefits which may be expected to arise either from a change in the existing law, or fioth strict and consistent observance of it. There can be no doubt that the present law was founded on a belief that such divorces are contrary to the law of God ; and I was therefore bound to satisfy myself that at least they ate not forbidden by that law before I could ad vise an alteration of our own which should make divorce a vinculo a common legal remedy. Christ himself has spoken on the subject; and his words, which have been reported by three of the Evangelists, have been interpreted differently by very learned and holy men ; some holding that in those which declare man and wife to be one flesh, and that man may not put asunder those whom God, has joined together, he pronounced the mar riage tie indissoluble ; while others have contended that another text from St. Matthew's G os p e l no t on ly permits the putting away a a wife who is guilty of fornication, but allows both parties to marry again. Before I was ap pointed on this commission, I entertained thislatter opinion, and my prejudices were in favour of it; but the attention which I have since felt it my duty to give to the subject has forced me to change it. I refrain, however, from argu ing this point, which has been so ably discussed by others far better qualified for such a task than myself. The only apostolic injunction. which has reached us on this subject is opposed to divorces. From the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians it would appear that they had written to him on the subject of marriage, and in the seventh chapter, after treating on various points, on which he says, " I speak this of permission and not of command ment, 'he adds, "And to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband. But if she depart let her remain unmarried, or be recon ciled to her husband ; and let not the husband put away his wife." . . In the first four centuries after the Apostles, the habits engendered under the Jewish and Roman laws in favour of divorce appear to have driven the fathers of the Church into some admission of the practice, but their unsettled and conflicting opinions on the subject prove that they were unable to speak directly in favour of it as of divine or apostolic precept. Some thought that divorces might be given for other causes than adul tery, which is clearly against our Saviour's injunction ; some that the innocent party alone might marry, again; some that the man and not the woman ; both opinions being opposed to the complete dissolution of the marriage. At length, that which appears to be the true doctrine was generally accepted by the Church, that if a woman is guilty of adultery the husband is justified in putting her away from, him, but that the marriage nevertheless re mains indissoluble. met hardness of men's hearts, how ever, induced them to cling to the old practice, and the Church of Rome, becoming corrupt and covetous, gave way in fairiain of those who could purchase such relief ; and, holding still the sound doctrine as to the indissolu bility of marriage, made the word of God of no effect by their traditions, and afforded such extended opportunities for lieclaring marriages null and void as enabled all who could conciliate the favour of the Church to have theirs so pronounced. The early reformers gave in to the licence which had thus grown up ; and it is remarkable, that men who professed in all matters to take the Scriptures for for their guidance should in this have gone quite beyond what is therein sanctioned and allowed divorces a vinculo for other causes than adultery. It is hardly possible to conceive a stronger proof of the danger of admitting the principle of such divorces, or of the certainty that, when once admitted, it Is sure to degenerate into more extended abuse. Passing from the consideration of the subject as a re ligious question, I proceed to treat it on moral and social grounds, and to inquire - into the comparative advan tages which may, be expected either from a change in the existing law, or from a strict and consistent adherence to it. To arrive at a just conclusion on these points, the question ough to be considered in its general bearing on the morals and happiness of the whole community, and not merely as regards the hardship which a change of practice may appear to inflict in particular cases ; and I am convinced (having, I trust, fairly and candidly inves tigated the subject) that the middle and lower classes have been far more benefitted than injured by. having such divorces practically denied to them, and that it is very questionable whether, on the whole, the wealthier classes have derived any advantage from having been able to pro cure them. First, as regards the 'more numerous class' to which divorces have been denied, I believe that there is no class in any country in the world in which the marriage tie is held more sacred than among them, or where an unchaste wife is more generally reprobated. They feel that once married, they are united, for better for worse. Hasty and unkind words and treatment are on this account frequently forgiven on both sides from a sense of necessity, and per sons of uncongenial tempers and habits, once united, learn to accommodate themselves to each other. Introduce fa cilities for divorce, and an immediate change for the worse may be predicted. A- door for escape will appear to be opened upon every disagreement. A new temptation, by the offer of a lawful marriage by the adulterer, is offered to infidelity to a class to which removal from a former home a few hundred miles affords an almost certain con cealment of guilt from those among whom they settle, and an escape from the consequent shame. Ido not hesi tate to declare my conviction, that not only a serious in jury would be done to general morality, but that the misery and unhappiness which would arise from homes deserted and children abandoned would be bitterly and extensively felt. Moreover, in determining this question, it is our duty to inquire .whether the present state of the law is felt as a grievance—whether it is generally com plained of. It is a remarkable fact that, notwithstanding the prejddice which Might naturally arise among the middle and industrial classes from such divorces being open to the rich and denied to themselves, there has never been any popilair demand- for a change in the law. I cannot think that we are justified in forcing such a change on those who do not ask for it, and particularly as the present state of the law as affects them has answered so well for their general happiness and morality. . I next proceed to inquire into the effect of the present practice on the wealthier classes, the extent to which 'it has been carried (on which tho necessity for a continuance of it may by some be thought to depend), and what benefits have arisen from it, or might be expected from its discon tinuance. From the publicity given to cases of divorce a vinculo, each having to go before the Ecclesiastical Courts, before a jury in the civil action, and before the two Houses of Parliament, a very erroneous impression has been created both at home and abroad as to the frequency of their oc currence. The number of divorce bills which have passed during the last lOyears is only 43, being on the average little more than four in each year. Last year there was only one; and this return includes not only all cases in the United Kingdom, but also in that large body of British-born sub jects who are engaged in the military and civil services in India and the colonies. It can hardly be urged that •so small a number of cases affords grounds for an alteration of the law, unless such alteration should appear in other re spects necessary or expedient. The next question to be determined is whether divorces -71 vinculo have proved so generally beneficial to those who have obtained them as to form a strong inducement to afford facilities for an extension of the practice. That there a b in e denied— w hichhappiness ie sem e t has t b been i f e a , p apparently re othersnt tosecuredthe husband,isenot a in a very few to both, and still more rarely to their r in all respec ts,:while in several, many of the evils atte ndant on them h ave been avoided by one or both of the p arties c c st hd r e n . lu'more cases they have proved disastrous renderse,w a h e i t ch necessary. In considering, divorce, arise • 't e ring next, whether any advantages are likely rr a g in f to from the entire abandonment of divorce a vinculo, I woulddirect attention , in th e first p lace, to the effect which the denial of such divorces to the majority of the ecoenftarra as contracting people of this country has produced, and which I believe they a y second are concerned, will be generally admitted to have been, on the whole, bene ficial both to their morals and ihappiness. As bearing on this point, I would also particularly refer to the effect pro duced bythe refusal in almost every instance of application for divorce on the part of the wife, in the same ranks of so ciety as those in which relief is obtained by the husband. How often has forgiveness ensued in such cases, which would have been impossible if a divorce had been obtained ! And though the injury received by the husband through the infidelity of his wife is far greater, and harder to forgive, I am satisfied that not unfrequently the bar which a divorce has placed to a reconciliation in after years, has, been the cause of much misery, particularly in cases in which calmer reflection may have suggested to the husband there were faults on both sides. A doubt may arise with some whether the withdrawal of the heavy, and, so far as this world is concerned, perpetual condemnation which accoinpanies such divorces, might not take away from those who are trembling on the threshold of guilt one great support and check against yielding to temp tation. Of such I would ask, whether they consider the four or five Parliamentary divorces which are obtained in each year, or the consequences which attend the crime,: to act as a prevention ? lam inclined to think that the ex pectation of a divorce.sometimes increases the temptation. If divorces a vinculo could be no longer obtained, divorces a mend et thoro, on the ground of adultery, would neces sarily be accompanied by the same exclusion from virtuous society, which is now so justly enforced and so severely felt. But they would not close the door to all hope of reconcilia• tion. Let us remember, in determining this point, who He was who said, "Ho that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Let us take example from Him who forgave the guilty one, when she stood alone before Him, bidding her to sin no more." Let us remember that with God forgiveness is always accompanied with re coucliation, and humbly inquire within ourselves whether, if we desire to prove ourselves worthy to be His followers, we are justified in placing the bar of divorce between an erring woman and all hope of reconciliation. I have another objection to the proposed alteration, from a conviction that it will extend much further than those who recommend it in their report intend or consider expedient. By the proposed change divorce a vinculo is no longer to be considered an exceptional law, but is to be made a com mon legal remedy. 'Viewing the subject in'this light, they desire that such remedy should be limited by the rules which at present govern the exceptional cases to which it has been hitherto applied. To secure this, the provisions of the act o f Parliament by which the change is to be effected ought to be clear and definite. No attempt has been made to frame such a measure, and I believe that, whenever it is attempted, the result will be unsatisfactory, ICappears to me, that any court to which the determina tion of such cases would be referred must be placed in a totally different position from that in which Parliament now stands in reference to these cases. The application at present is to have an exceptional law passed, and the dis cretion, con sequen tl y , w hich can be exercised by . Parlia ment is great. N o j u d ge can feel himself in the enjoyment of the same lib er t y i n a d m inistering the existing law as he may in reco mmen di ng or refusing a special relief from its provisions. I b e li eve it will be generally admitted that a divorce a Inensel et thoro may be granted in cases in which a divorce a tined() ought to be refused. The practice of any existing court, therefore, can only bo imperfectly adapted as a guide for this new tribunal ; and, unless a dis cretion similar to that now exercised by Parliament can be transferred to it, which I believe every lawyer would feel himself practically debarred from exercising under the al tered circumstances, or unless words can be devised to ex press an enactment exactly that which the commissioners desire to secure, which I believe to be equally impossible, divorces a vinculo will in future be granted in cases whiCh would now have no chance of success, and to which the commissioners do not desire to extend it. My apprehensions of evil consequences, however, extend still further, I consider the tribunal recommended by the commissioners for determining these questions a very good one ; but proceding before it in cases of divorce a vinculo will necessarily be attended with some expense, though far below that which is required. These divorce:: will thus be openedeto.another and, numerous class, but a still more numerous class will be equally excluded as at present. Once create an appetite for such license by the proposed change, and the demand to be permitted to satisfy it will become irresistible. The cry for cheap law has of late I been universally atteided, to, and the result will too pro. THE SUN, LONDON, TUIESDAY EVENING, MARCH 29, 1853. bably be that these delicate and important questions will be brought before inferior tribunals, where the number of the judges (each acting separately) will render anything like uniformity of decision upon the circumstances which are to rule in refusing applications impossible, and must ultimately lead to extreme facility in obtaining such divorces.. For these reasons I am unable to concur in the report agreed upon by the other commissioners in all that relates to divorce a vinculo, as in my opinion it is expedient— That the law of England, which now holds the marriage tie to be indissoluble should remain unaltered ; and That the practice of passing exceptional laws in favour of particular cases should henceforth be discontinued. I concur in the other recommendations of the report. REDESDALE. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'S-MONDAY. The only betting to any amount or to which it is neces ary to refer, was on the Northamptonshire Stakes, for which several new favourites were introduced, the prin cipal outlay being on Dabchick, Happy Joe, Kingston, Alp, and Tobolski ; Dabchick leaving off only second in command. During the greater part of the afternoon the quotations against Defiance and Hobbyhorse were 4 to 1 and 7 to 1 ; but at the close the offers were to lay 9 to 2 and 8 to 1, and no one seemed disposed to support them. The room was fully attended, but business dull. NORTHAMPTONSHIRE STAKES. 4to 1 agst Defiance. 7to 1 agst Hobby Horse. 7to 1 agst Dabchick. 16 to 1 agst Lady Blanche. 13 to 1 agst Tobolski (taken). 13 to 1 agst Kingston (taken). 15 to 1 agst Happy Joe. 12 to 1 agst Alp. 12 to 1 agst Postulant. CHESTER CUP. f 2 to 1 agst Trifle. 35 to 1 agst Little Jack. WHITTLEBURY STAKES. 3to 1 agst Lady Audrey (taken). 7to 2 agst Charley (taken). METROPOLITAN HANDICAP. 13 to 2 agst Contentment. 16 to 1 agst Terpsichore. 14 to 1 agst Peggy. CITY AND SUBURBAN. 10 to 1 agst Jouvance. TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS STAKES. sto 4 agst West Australian and Sittingbourne DERBY. 9to 1 agst West Australian. 12 to 1 agst Cineas. 12 to 1 agst Orestes. 15 to 1 agst Honeywood. 16 to 1 agst Reiver. BIRMINGHAM STEEPLECHASES.— MoNDAT. The GRAND ANNUAL STEEPLECHASE HANDICAP of 20 'goys. each, h ft, and 5 only if declared, with 100 eovs. added. 4 miles. (26 Subs., Bof whom declared ) Mr. Wycherley's Shinrone, 9st 91b (Boyce) 1 Mr. S. Lucy's Tipperary Boy, lOst 21b 2 Mr. Thursby's Talisman ' 9st 31b 3 Mr. Land's The General, lOst 4 Captain Scott's Victress lOst 21b fell Mr. O'Callaghan's Geraldus, 9st 21b fell Betting-5 to 2 agst Shinrone, 3to 1 agst Talisman, 4to 1 agst Geraldus and Tipperary Boy. Won easy by a length. The STEEPLECHASE FREE HANDICAP of 5 sovs. each, and 25 added. 3 miles. (12 Subs.) Mr. Land's The Screw (301.), 9st 71b (Green) 1 Mr. Jervis's Nom de Guerre (501.), 9st 01b. Mr. Williams's The Unknown, 9st 121 b 3 Mr. J. Brown's Bullfincher (301.), 9st 41b 0 Mr. Page's Hazard (301.), 9st 91b 0 Mr. Talker's Lizzy (801.), 9st 51b 0 Betting-2 to 1 agst Nom de Guerre, 3to 1 each agst Screw and Lizzy, 4to 1 agst Bullfincher. Won by a length ; Unknown a bad third. THE BIRMINGHAM HUNT STEEPLECHASE HANDICAP Of 3 Sovs. each, and 100 Sovs. added. 4 miles. 22 Subs. Mr. J. P. Smith's ch g by Bulwark, 4 yrs 12st 51b (Darling) 1 Mr. Lucy's Songer (aged) 13st Olb 2 Mr. W. Cooper's Garendon, aged, 13st. 3 Mr. S. D. Williams' Bones, aged, 13st 4 Twelve others' ran. The SELLING STEEPLECHASE STAKES of 2 Sovs. each, and 15 added. Two miles. 9 subs. Mr. Davenport's Tom Bowling, aged (201.), (Owner) 1 Mr. Land's Vestress, 5 yrs. (201.) 2 Mr. Lowe's Honesty, aged (4(1/.) 0 Mr. Parker's The Dodger (201.) 0 Won by a length. OLDHAM STEEPLECHASE. MONDAY. , The BROADBENT STEEPLECHASE HANDICAP of 3 sous. each, and 25 added. 7 subs. Flying Buck, aged, 9st 131 b. Countess, lOst 101 b THE OLDHAM STEEPLECHASE STAKES of 7 sou. each, 3 ft, and 100 added. 20 subs. Ringleader, 5 yrs, 9st 121 b 1 Quickstep, aged, 9st 10Ib Four others started. The SCURRY STEEPLECHASE HANDICAP of 1 soy. each, and 15 added, once round, was won by Mr. Coburn's Flying Buck, list 71b (Mathews), beating Frederick Jerome (10st 41b), Pathfinder (10st 41b), Timothy (10st), Lightfoot (10st), Little Wonder (10st), and Physic. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. CUSTOM . -110USE-MARCH 28. ENTERED INWARDS.—The Ceres, from Rotterdam ; Menai, Calais ; Magnet, Harlingen ; City of London, Dun kirk ; Lion, Harlingen and Nieu Dieppe ; Giraffe, Rotter dam ; Augusta, Calais ; Concordia, Rotterdam ; Lewe van Nyonstein, Amsterdam ; Alice Thompson, Odessa ; Maria Lodovica, Galatz ; Ravensbourne, Antwerp ; Affeczione, Leghorn • Regina, Malta • Trident, Marseilles ; James Gray, Ch ' arleston ; Helios,Berdianski ; Albion, Dunkirk ; City of Paris, Boulogne ; Mercury, Bordeaux ; Lionne, Gravelines ; Fyenoord, Rotterdam. ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING.—The City of Lon don, for Dunkirk; Menai, Calais ; Ceres, Rotterdam ; Nayler, Stettin ; Ravensourne, Antwerp ;' Concordia, Rotterdam Princess Victoria, Melbourne ; Marchioness of Londonderry, Port Philip ; Jersey, Berbice. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO. The Cicely, for Aden and Bombay ; Louice, Alexandria ; Elige, Rotter dam • Rapid, Galatz, Ibrail, and Constantinople ; Jersey , Berbice ; City of Boulogne, Boulogne. LIVERPOOL, March 28.—The Irene, for Valparaiso, which upset in the river some time since, drowning nine men, has been righted, and towed into the Queen's Dock Basin. —The George Canning, from Alnwick, ran foul of and sunk the Woodcock, in Chester river flat, near the small landing stage.—A bright varnished boat, bottom up, was passed on the 22d inst., and the mast of a vessel, with rigging attached, and the dead body of a man clinging to it, were passed on the 23d, 15 miles N.E. by E. of Bardsey, by the Caroline, arrived here from Halifax.—The Celeste, from Belfast, whilst coming up the river yesterday, ran foul of the Blonde, for Sydney, at anchor; and received considerable damage.—A fire broke out yesterday in the cabin of the Asia, loading for Melbourne, in the Sandon Dock, but it was extinguished before doing much damage. RAMSGATE, March 27.—The Figaro, of and from Bre men, for New York, which got on the Goodwin Sands, has been assisted off, making a little water, and with loss of false keel. SCILLY, March 28.—The Sultana, Hamburgh schooner, from Baltimore, was totally lost here on March 24 ; crew drowned. BELFAST, March 26.—The Diligence (smack) of Cardi gan, which struck on the Briggs, on the 14th, has been floated, and was towed up here yesterday. The Albanian, Winsor, sailed from Mazagan to the United States, on or about the 10th November, and has not since been heard of. The Robert Bruce, Wilson, from Leith and Newcastle to Cadiz, was in Portland Roads, 23d November, and has not since been heard of. The Catharina Cornelia, Oldenberger, from Konigsberg to Salcome, passed the Sound 20th November, and has riot since been heard of. VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. The York, Now Orleans to Liverpool, Feb. 24, in the Gulf of Florida. The Excess, from Coquimbo, March 6, lat. 29 N., long. 42 W. The Inca, of New York, bound west', 16th, lat. 45 N., long. 20 W. The Catharine, bound west, 22d, lat. 51 N. ' long. 8 W. The Salem, Liverpool to New Orleans, Feb. 24, off Antonia. The Argo, Clyde to Mobile, same day. Tarquin, Cardiff to Now Orleans, Feb. 12, lat. 27 N. , long. 53 W. The Scotia, Liverpool to Baltimore, March 4, lat. 37 N., long. 12 W. floorndri e n mm a ay s i hsneo.salr.f;nt dtwmimorue. exclusive s d ß h o e b e [ADVEATISEMENTA—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills a w ß lv .c c l l en, book dated Feb. 14, 1852, to Professor Holloway :—" Sir My child, when three months old, was afflicted with a —Extract Certain Cu o r f o a f for letterE r Eruptions p fromt ion s Mr. and j a . ll H D i r i Diseases as e s draper,oa sfrcetprhsKeoesrteStoaskrdeioyndf; wa s enhvdoe whom t e hte e h r eruption advice c p a t s io e n w oas a f l l sc o uo v r i s r ei,cl h en e : r e body. ando hopeless. pp . ehl ye l sssi s c. o i a u n g ls h , t t every hbeyn au triedaoi df your Ointment and Pills, and wifitehoinutLoexnacigogneorfation Sunday happy to satisfy' any inquiries as to the truth of this statement." te o ff e p e e t rf w e c a e t h m e i a r l a t e h u , Sold by all druggists ; and at Professor Holloway's Esta blishment, Gainsboroulgoauhns,d, the Northampton and Catterick Bridge n bl e i xE s A h t, m DvA e E n pE t r , Tili 2 s 4 E3 4 filE S vNi t lT ra l.je n —o d n , Bt L aciln o l n ,sf d u o Ll n i Races ; Bir mingham, St. Alban's, Driffleld , and Oldham Steeple Chases ; Remarks on Northa mp t on, and Anticipati ons of Epsom, by "Pegasus -" Programm e o f E psom, Crox ton Park, 11r. AT. &c., -..'e. ; ' Coursing, H u ai Aquatics, Pedestrianism, Pigeon Shooting , ng, Angling, particulars of the mills between Bill Hayes Chess. Full Grant for 300 sovereigns, and Ned Donnelly and Jack of Portsmouth for 100 sovereigns and Jones and miscellaneous news. Bell'sLi and other sporting pub lished every Saturday morning • L i fe i n London is mails. The Latest Edition of in i t 3 ime for all the early comprehensive summary of Saturdays ell's Life contains a hour of going to press.—. Sale of news, up to the Office, 170, Strand.—Advertisements Bell's Life, 30,000. five o'clock on Friday aftern oons, POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW STREET. —William Bigtop, a private in the first battalion of Grenadier Guards, accompanied by his sergeant, attended before Mr. Hall, to state the parti culars of the following lamentable occurrence : Bishop said that he was walking backwards and for wards' on Waterloo-bridge, between twelve and one o'clock on Saturday night, in company with a prostitute who went by the name of Elizabeth and lived in Catherine-street, Strand ; and that havineb Gordon, left her for a minute, for a p r i va t e purpose, s h e suddenly raised her self to the parapet of the bridge, and leaped into the river. He heard the splash occasioned by her fall into the water, and, on looking over, he heard her voice ex claiming " Bill." She always called him by that name. He had known her on and off for several years ; but he had not had any quarrel with her that night. The sergeant stated that Bishop made a similar state ment at the barracks in the morning, but it was thought very extraordinary that he did not raise any alarm at the time, nor tell the polic e or t o ll-k eepers w h at h ad happened. It appeared that he went to the house where the woman lodged and gave information of the occur rence to the landlady or some person living there. Under these circumstances witness had been directed by the commanding officer to take Bishop before a magis trate, to state his own version of the story. Mr. Hall—Was lie sober when he returned to the barracks ? The sergeant—Yes, quite sober. Bishop—l had been drinking all the evening, but I knew what I was about. I was not drunk. Mr. Hall—You say you had not had any words with her. Was anything said in conversation which might induce you to think that she contemplated suicide. Bishop—No, sir. The sergeant said that inquiry had been made at the girl'slodgings, but nothing had been seen or heard of her since Saturday. Mr. Hall directed the sergeant to communicate with the police upon the subject, as, if the body should be found, Bishop would be required to give evidence at the coroner's inquest. In the course of the afternoon Inspector Wilkinson re ceived information at the Bow-street station that the body of a young woman, answering, the description given of Elizabeth Gordon, had been taken out of the river at Wandsworth. GUILDHALL.—IViii. Nettle, a cabinet-maker, was charged before Alderman Sir R. W. Carden with com mitting a series of indecent assaults upon a little girl under 12 years of age. Margaret M'Kay said she lived at 39, Bridgwater gardens, and was twelve years old on the 9th of last February. A short time before Christmas she met with the prisoner in a "penny gaff" in Golden-lane, and when the performance terminated he took her to Smithfield. On the way thither he took her into a public-house, and gave her a glass of gin, and after committing the offence complained of he gave her sixpence, and appointed to meet her again at the "gaff" on the following evening. The second time she saw him he gave her sixpence, and on the third occasion he took her again to Smithfield. Her next meeting with him resulted in his taking her to a house of ill-fame near Smithfield, and after passing some time in bed together he gave her 4d., and parted from her. The last time she saw him was about three weeks or a month ago, when he took her from the penny theatre to a bookseller's shop at the corner of a court, where he gained admittance at the front door by ringing a bell, and let her in at the back, so that the bov might not see her at all. She passed the night with him by the side of the books in the shop, and did not go home to her mother's house until the morning. The prisoner gave her a shilling on that occasion, which she spent in cakes and sweetmeats. The prisoner appointed to meet her again, but she did not see him after that. In answer to questions from Sir R. W. Carden, the complainant said she was a frequent visitor at the penny theatre, and sometimes she was there as often as twice a week. Her mother did not know she went to such a place, for she never told her. Complainant told her sister first how the prisoner had treated her, in order to induce h er t o go w i t h her to meet him, and the sister told her mother. The performances commenced at six o'clock, and were over at seven o'clock, when they began again, and lasted till half-past eight, and it was during the latter time that she mostly visited the place. In her cross-examination she became very confused in the dates of the offences that were alleged to have taken place since Christmas, but adhered to the principal facts given in the evidence in chief. Ellen Maa,y stated she saw the prisoner and the complainant, who was , her sister, enter a public-house in company about a fortnight before Christmas. Fanny Fowler (as the reporter understood the name) said she was money-taker at the penny theatre, which her father conducted, and she had frequently seen the prisoner leave the theatre in company with the com plainant. Sir R. W. Carden inquired what kind of performances were exhibited at this penny establishment ? The witness said they had nothing but singing and the laughing gas. The Secretary to the " Society for the Protection of Young Females," who was in attendance during the proceedings, here stated that be was watching the case on behalf of that society, and it was a most unfortunate fact that by far the greater portion of young females ap plying for admission to the Society's Asylum owed their fall entirely to these penny theatrical establishments. The case had only just come under his notice, but if it was remanded he would take steps to prosecute the inquiry further. Sir R. W. Carden said he was glad there was some one to take up the prosecution in such a case. The evi dence was quite clear as regarded the first transaction, but he was afraid that the complainant was a wicked little girl, and although she had no doubt told some en truth, she had evidently end eav oured to excuse her r w bad conduct by a great deal of falsehocohll.d to frequent The was greatly to blame for allowing a such a den of iniquity, and it was not to . be w o a n r d e e n r t e s d s a n t if children became degraded when they had p utterly regardless of their welfare. The Alderman then asked the o neighourhood why he had not repsorffiteederthoins dpuentynyinththeaat tre to his superiors ?—The officer . aid because his supe riors were already aware of its existence. Sir. R. W. Carden wished to know why the police authorities had taken no steps to abolish such a hot-bed of vice and pest to society. The acting-inspector said he had attended the theatre on several occasions, but saw nothing beyond singing and dancing to enable him to interfere ; but with the evidence given by the money-taker in this case, the police would now have power to act. The prisoner was admitted to bail, and remanded till Friday next. CAPTURE OF A RUNAWAY BANKRUPT IN AUSTRALIA. —About seven months since, a warehouseman, trading under the firm of Spriggs and Co., in the City, and who had obtained goods on credit to the amount of 30,0001., which he converted into cash, absconded, and embarked in a fictitious name on board the Cleopatra for Australia. A fiat in in bankruptcy was filed against him, and as he did not surrender, a warrant was issued for his appre hension.. Mr. Charles Falconer, an intelligent and re spectable man, who was for upwards of 25 years attached to the Thames police, as constable, surveyor, and in spector, and who had been on the superannuation list for several years, was appointed by the creditors of the bankrupt to pursue him ; and, with the concurrence of the,commissioners of the metropolitan police, he embarked on board the Sarah Sands, an American screw steamer bound for Port Philip. The Sarah Sandsleft Cork in Oct. last, and her safe arrival at. Port Philip has been already announced. A serious accident happened to Mr. Falconer on the voyage out. He was standing near the gangway of the screw steamer in conversation with the steward, when a heay sea struck the vessel, and Mr. Falconer was knocked backwards with great violence, by which six of his ribs were broken. He was insensible for some time afterwards, and never moved out of his berth for six weeks after the occurrence. About three weeks ago, it was rumoured that Falconer had died of the injuries he received, but advices have been since re ceived by his family, and by the assignees, of the run away bankrupt, conveying the gratifying information that Mr. Falconer had arrived at Melbourne, quite re covered from the effects of his accident, and that three days afterwards he had succeeded in apprehending the person of whom he was in pursuit. It appears that the Sarah Sands, which sailed a fortnight after the Cleo patra, arrived three days before her, and that as the fraudulent bankrupt was coming on shore, Mr. Falconer, who had been very often in his company in London, stepped up to him, and immediately made him his pri soner, and upon searching him found 10,0001. i n cash in his possession, which he siezed on behalf of the creditors. Mr. Falconer also took possession of the property of the bankrupt on board the Cleopatra, and lodgedhis prisoner' in gaol. The bankrupt was sub sequentlybrought before the authorities at Melbourne, and Mr. Falconer having produced a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, and another from one of the City magistrates, with the sworn depositions of some of the creditors, the bankrupt was delivered into the custod of the ' London officer, for transmission to England. y Mr. Falconer is now on his way to England with the fraudulent bankrupt, and in his last letter stated that he expected to reach London in the course of the present week. The money taken from the bankrupt will secure a handsome dividend for the creditors. DISTURBANCES AT GREY TOWN AND CITAGRES —When the last W est I ndia steamer left Grey Town and • Chag , disturbances were d a il y apprehended between the Ame ricansles located at those places and the Mosquitan and New Grenadan Governments. At Grey Town, the Mosquitan Government had allowed the Americans the tempo rary use of a small island, not much better than a sand-bank, which forms part of the harbour, and is situated at a short distance from the town. The Yankees quickly built a few houses on it, and now the steamers that come down the river, instead of stopping at the town as formerly to pay dues and benefit the inhabitants, stop at the island and avoid all dues, and deprive the inhabitants of the town of an immense benefit. The Mosquitan Government had ordered the Americans to quit the island, because the ob ject for which they had been allowed a temporary loca tion there had ceased. The Americans had refused to leave, and the day after the West India packet left Grey Town the Mosquitan avernment intended to drive the intruders out by force. When the packet left Chagres there was a violent dispute raging between the New Grenadan Government and the new town' built up by American, German, and other speculators at Navy Bay. The New Grenadan Government had imposed a house tax on the stores and houses built there, which the inha bitants had refused to pay. The tax amounted to from 10 to 100 dollars a month, according to the size of the houses and stores and business done in them. A military official had been sent down to Navy Bay by the New Grenadan Government, and the struggle between the inhabitants and the authorities was expected to come off a week after the mail steamer left Chagres. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER —MARcH 26. Prices to-day were as fellow :-z--Wheat, white, 48s to 56a ; red, 40s to 50s ; barley, 34s to 38s ; -oats, 17s to 24s • beans, Mazagan, 30 s t o 32 s ; m iddl e and small, 32s to 38; ; PC" , white, 40s to 42s ; grey, 30s to 325. CHELSFORD—MAR cif 24. Prices to-day were as M follow :—Wheat, w hite, old 403 Od to 57s Od, new 38 s to 55 5; red, old 363 to 475, new 31s to 445; barley, 25s to 27s ; chevalier, 31s to 37s • grinding, 21s to 27s ; ma lt, 55 s to 56s ; chevalier 55s t0 ' 563; oatS, 19s to 25s ; p eas , partride 30s to 35s ;white, 32s to 31s ; boiling 38s to 41s ; dun, new, 29s to 33s ; beans, tick, 32s to 345 ; Harrow ti c k s , 31i t o 365; Mazagan, 29s to 325. The following is the official statement of the quantities of corn, &c., received in the port of London from the ports in Essex, from the 21st to the 26th March, both in' elusive : . • T A ; 4 1 a 5 - 1 0 Colchester Harwich Leigh - Maldon BBB 50! 300 60 3291 991 420 KIRKCALDY— MARCH 26. The following are the quotations for grain : Wheat. Barley. Oats. Beans. I First Second I Third 39s Od 278 6.1 17s Od I Os , " Oatmeal, per bag of 2801138 imperial, 29s Od to 305 O d. COAL MARK Prices of Coal per ton at t s. d.l Bate's West Hartley 16 3 Buruhopo l6 0 Carr's Hartley l6 6 Hasting's Hartley 16 6 Howard's West Hartley Netherton 16 6 Longridges W. Hartley 17 0 New Tanfield 16 6 North Percy Hartley l6 *0 RavensworthW. Hartley 17 0 South Hartley 16 0 Taufield Moor . 16 3 Tanfield Moor Butes 16 = 0 West Wylam Trader 17 0 Willington Hartley l6 3 Wylam 17 9 Gosforth 18 9 Harton lq 9 Harvey Wylam, uns. l6 6 Hebburn lB t: Ships at market ET—lff&acu 28. ,he close of the market : 0. 4. Killingsworth E. l6 6 1 Lawson lB 0 Riddell lB 9 Washington 16 0 Eden Main . .19 3 Belmont 20 0 Braddyll - 26 0 Plummer 9 • e Richmund .. . l9 6 Russell's Hetton 20 0 Stewart's 20 0 23 0 Caradoc INorth Hartlepool ... :. . l6 - 8 South Hart1ep001........ 20 0 Thornley l9 '0 Whitworth • 16 9 irees 9 0 IBirchgrove Graigola 23 ;0 Wayne's Merthyr 2l 6 . 90 J 801 d B7. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, MARCH 28. The market to-day was very dull and heavy, wi th generally lower prices. The principal dealers were occu pied with arrange m e n t s f or th e settling of the account on Wednesday. Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire (22/.) rn shares, 3hd.—Chester and Holyhead; 321 er Counties, 12i—Lancashire and Yorkshire, 754—Lancast and Carlisle, 93—Ditto (third shares), 13a p.—Liverpoul, Crosby, and Southport, 17—London and South-Wes tern _ , I.lB4—Ditto (4-shares, C), p.—Manchester, Sheffield! and Lincoln, 306 s—Midland, 74i 4—South -Eastern and Dover, 234—York, Newcastle, and Berwick, VI -- Northrn Union A, 251. MANCHESTER, MARCEL 28. There was very little business doing, and p u ricl w nds er : -rather lower. Do vers , 231 ; L ee d s s tock, 751 ;— 1 74 ; Sheffield pref., 11.. BIRMINGHAM, MABus.2B. The market here w as ver y flat all day, and very little business doing. LEEDS MAucu 28. We have had a rather brisker market to-day. The business done done is still not large, and prices do not h o wever, show any material change. On the whole, shares are firm. The following are the closing transactions this morning :—North British, ; East Lancas hire, 18; Leeds Northerns, 16i ; ditto Fifths (4/. paid) , i die; York and North Midlands, 29} ; North-Westerns, 84 Lancashire and Yorkshir e s, 75b exSouth-Eastern and Dovers, 23/. 6s. 3d. ; Leeds Northern Extensions, No. 1, prem. SEABORNE MAILS. • (N signifies that the mails are sent from the General Post-01 by the night—and M by the morning -dispatch.] • COUNTRIES. in General Yost- Disi.atched. England' Office, London. Day when made ui --- ----- ---------- Each Mon. , FroTeilvthat due r in Sts. March 30 .. • • • • • • ( ( b b y y ll u rilp te a d ek s ) e N Every Friday - .... Liverpool •• • America A m p e a i k ea t ) ..... . . . . . Liverpool •• • April l 4 8 America (by U States . Southampton ton pill 4 31 4th of May ••• •• .• Australia (.v.April 5 • it arseilles) N Bth of • • p a ampton) packet) . . i. .... .. .. 50uth...... .. t; , Ditto (via • , . 0 • . March 30 Ditto (via Cape of . 4 : 1 . D ..1.4 2d of. April ...... 'Ptymo.th . 4 ra ••• . Southampton . Ho") .• •• **** t) .N 23rd-of the month elymouth ... Sian.p hli) May .... Dover ~.... April a Africa (West Coas . I`.l ith Ri 2oth of mon. S0111•1154:0Pt9n _- f tl•e Mouth :4oLitti ton 8 i t Of 111(11 Alexandria........ ~,, 0 . r .• .. Daily - Agx ,.... .. ... .. . . .:, ... 3 :•,1 1 :4 t , hi. of the B: m 3o m :t h in .. Bah/Idyls ••-•• - • • • . - . _. _ - I) ;;:th r ittn — p " lon A p )- r ii .l 111 Hove ...'N 14th of the month Plymouth .. March 26 CAP. °f Ge° is 7 2 4 f A 1 Plymouth .. Biltrell .30 of Gool hope .. n o pr .•• .. rittraezit'o'a.,k;re.ds• •.• • • • ....NI 9th of ,he month,. Southampton April 16 C a pe c a pe de Venda ......N 14th of the month Plymouth .. March 26 Ce ylon (see India) Ceylon . .........N 14th of the month Plymouth .. March 26 Channel Isles .. .. .. .. N Mon „Wed ,&Fr'd Southampton Pa '111: tic Chat • • • ..... • • • • • ... N ..d & 17th of month Southampton April 1 China (see India) . Constantinople N ',8,17,21,&27 of m D0ver...... March 30 Constantinople 3l 4th & 20th of mon Southampton April 4 Cont. of Europe M & N Twi C e daily ...... Dover ....... Ovicedaill Egypt (see India) France ........ M & N Twice daily ...... Do v er ...... Tivicedaily Gibraltar .-.. • 31 4,7, 17, 20, 27 of m. Southampton March 26 Greece (see India) (Ireytown .... •••. • • 31 2nd & 17th of mon. 4 outhampton April 1 • Hamburgh .....• N Tuesday & Friday London ..... Tiles. Si t ' Havannah .....• NI 2nd of the month Southampton April 1 Holland .. .... •. . . M Wednesday & Sat ... . mon.Thar Honduras . ... —Al 17th of the month Southa London. mpton April 16 India (vlaSoutitampt.)3l 4th & 20th of mon. Southampton t pril 4 Inlia (via Marsellies)sl kb& 24th of month Dover ...... Apr il I lonian Isles (see I n di a ) Ireland .... • ... hi & N Twice daily ...... Holyhead ... fwiCedaJ l i Li Mon. : .... , ill 7,9, 17, &28of m. Southampton April 1 6 _ Madeira 3l 9th of. the month -outhampton Madeira ...... •... • N 23rd of the month Plymouth .. April 12 Malta (see India) Malta ...... ••• • • • N 7 ,17,19,28, 30 ofm. Dover ...... March 2 9 Mauritius (see India) Mauritius .... •• • • N 14th of the month Pl 7 mouth .. March 26 tpril 16 - M ealco 3l 2nd of the month. Southampton tat of tilQue Naples...,. N sth i s D.2sthormon Dover ... ... Apt 11 2 New New Zealand.,„Granacla .... i,.! Papal States N Uncertain 2 ,B d tyh & ipbr i ti 7 h, t 2e l ,t l te o h f eo m hf. mi ship n o n t . h .. Dvoavrieeru . port:. Southampton . April April 2 Peninsula ..... Si th I 7tl42Bthoimon Southampton April 5 Peru •••••• • • • • • • —NI 'd & 'Bth of mon s'outhampton April I_, Port Natal .... . • • • N 14th of the month PI mouth .. March 7 ° Sicily ... ...... N sthl \ th 2s tholinon, Dover ...... Tuscany ... ...... N s t llls th2sthofinon. Dover ...... April 2 Venezuela ..... M2d & i 7 th of month Van I demen's Land ( lee Australia) .. .. . , outhampton April 1 West Indies • ... 3l 2d & 17th of month Southampton. Apri l 1 propseEcPuTtHinOgraTslicEieOntefEfiAcikrv.o—yaCgaep, t r a e i c n e D ot e ly nh r a e m ad , Ra now p a per at the Royal Society, in which the deepest sounding of the ocean ever m a d e was recorded. On the passage from 7,10 e 6 , o fa n th a om c Rio Oe Janeiro to the Cape of Good Hope, in 36 deg* : t4u9dmin. south latitude, and 37 deg. 6 min. west longv a s lin deep, day i The weig ht of the superincumbent water was so excessive, that a ithgeeoogereaapnhiweasmaislecse.rtained to be bottle of fresh water e being lowered to a great el in the se a , th e pressure drove in the cork, and expelled tl l ° contents, the sea -water taking the place of the fresh. -- Leisure Hour. A LUCKY BUTLER.—Much gossip has been excited at Wells f or some weeks past, from the circumstance of report having got into circulation that the bishop, butler, Mr. Box, was engaged to be married to 'a u / :with a fortune of 60,0001. This report, so far as the marriage is conce rne d, was con fi rme d on Monday last, when the wedding took place in London. Whether the fortune of th e l a d y exten d s to t h e sum a b ove mentioned we do not pl e d ge ourselves, but it seems certain th at Box is become master of a sum of 20,000/., r rr settled on him, leavi ng th e l a dy m i s t r ess of a stillelargeat sum. Mr. B ox ' s f r i en d s i n W e ll s are m uch gratified knovr his good f or t une . H e i s cons id ere d by all vrh him an intelligent and highly respectable man.—So°menet County Gazette. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 28th inst., at his Grace's residence in Upper Bel grave-street, the Duchess Of Marlboroug. On the 23d inst., at Clogrennane, Carlow, the Hon. Ma. Rochfort. On the 25th inst. ' at 25, East C laremont-s tre et, Edin burgh, Mrs. Robert Chisholm. On the 20th inst., at 4, Clapham-rise, Dirs. J. Boucher. On the 19th inst.,7t 2 A O3 D , A S u lo G an in e E -sTreet, the wife of Mr. H. J. Curry. MARRIED. On the 23d inst., at Balhelvie, Fifeshire, Mr. John Bi. Cameron, Liverpool, to Agnes Lawrie, eldest daughte r ° David Russell, Esq., of Middlefield. On the 24th ins t., at the Church of the Holy T 54. rinitY2 Stratford-on-Avon , Ben j a min Hadley Sanders, Esq. , torney, son of Th omas Tudor Sanders, Esq., o f Bron grove , to Mary, daughter of Thomas Shuth, Esq., ° Clifford Forge, Stratford-on-Avon.. Everton, Henry Jackson, Esq. of Everton, to Elizabeth, On the 25th inst., by li cence, daughter of S. Moore, Esq., of Bellevue terrace, Everton, Liverpool. at St. Peter's Church, On the 26th inst., at Christ Church, Bermondsey, John c, W'." eldest son of the Rev. John G. Harrison, of Daven port, to Jane, second daughter of Charles Glyde Wre nk. more, Esq., H.M. Customs, London. _...----- On the 24th inst. , age D d l s E s l) ,.Captain Dilke, it•L'r', of Maxtoke Castlrwickshire. On the 18th e in Wa st., at Great Malvern Mrs. Parker, vdol of the l a t e C o l one l P ar k er , of Astle, in the countY ° Cheshire, and sister of the Right Hun. Lord Delamere, aged 76. On the 24th inst., at Bradley Rectory, near Ashbourri! Derbyshire, Captain Archer, R.N., fourth son of Thom?, Archer, Esq., Mount John, county of Wicklow, Irebtua aged 69. LONDON : Printed and Published by DIURDO ir°132443 11 4 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TU Sun Office, lie. Strand, in the Precinct of the Sa_ y 27, la the fossil Middlesex * Tuesday, March 20, 1