The Sun. — London, England, 1857-08-25 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LoNzov PIPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORi)S—(YEsTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. TRADE IN OPIUM. The LORD CHANCELLOR leid on the table the (si- ion of the law officers of the Crown, with respect to tee 1 igality of the manufacture and sale of opium. NEWS FROM INDIA. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGHsaidseeing thenobie lord, the Secretary of War, in his place, he begged to a-k him whether any further telegraphic intelligencehad been received from India. Lord PANMURE said nothing further than the de ep tch which had appeared in the newspapers had been received. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH hoped ho would be allowed to suggest that it would bo exceedingly conve nieiit if the Government of Calcutta, Madras, and Ilerobay would endeavour to enlist the service some gentlemen who would be competent put upon paper short facts in an intelligible form. If such a course was adopted such ambiguity would be avoided as appeared in the last telegraphic dispatch. Nothing was more unsatisfactory than the terms of the despatch last received. He wished now to call the atten tion of the noble lord the Secretary at War to a subject tneetioned a few days ago on the subject of the number of militia the Governmentproposed to embody. He under stood the noble lord to say that the Government had taken a vets for 200,0001. for that purpose, and that this iite was:to be applied to the embodiment of 10,000 men. lie begged to remind the noble lord that 30 battalions had aocv been transferred to the service of the East India Company. The expenses and pay of that force would amount for six months to 410,0001. There were like vise four additional regiments of cavalry transferred to the charge of the East India Company, whose pay for the same period would be 29,0001. There were tiler 2,000 or 3,000 whose expense for a like time would be 32,0001., there were likewise some sappers and miners to be sent out whose pay might be set down at 8,0001. Tuerefore, including the 450,0001., the re,•venues of the country would be charged to a leas amount than usual by iabout 559,0001. He calculated that the cost of the militia proposed to be embodied would not amount to more than no,ooot , leaving a sum of 259,0001. surplus. He hoped the Government would see the propriety of employing the whole of the feu-plus in the embodiment of a mili tia force beyond the number of 10,000 as proposed. Lord PANMURE said the whole of the balance al luded to would be applied to the establishment of such a force as would meet the exigencies of the case. The noLle earl should recollect that, independently of the permanent charge of the militia, there were no less than 550 recruiting parties for the line dispersed through out the country. During the last three weeks no less than 16,000 re.cruits had been received. Earl POWIS :aid it would be very convenient if the noble lord would ?pacify the regiments of militia he proposed to be embodied. Lord PANMURE said as soon as the order in coun cil, which was a necessary preliminary step was issued, every information on the subject would be given, The subject then dropped. THE DIVORCE BILL. Lord REDESDA.LE called the attention of their for Ishipe to what took place on Friday, relative to what t)ck place on the subject of the consideration of the Commons amendments to this bill. Having explained his conduct on the occasion, with a view of showing that his motion to postpone the consideration of the Cernmone' amendments for six months was perfectly regu lar, and founded upon precedent, he complained of the language used toward him by the noble and learned lord no the Woolsack, as well as the noble earl the Lord President of the Council. His course of proceeding was termed a trick, although he had given notice of his motion, nod although he had sufficient support on that occasion to defeat the bill altogether, he yes 'consented, in defer s:l:co to the appeals made to him, to withdraw hi; motion. He hoped that under the circumstance some ap logy would be rendered him for the unjustifiable len gu - ose with which ho had been assailed. EARL GRANVILLE said he believed he was the last person to address their lordships on the motion of the noble lord, and if be remembered accurately, what he he Lad said was, that from his knowledge of the cha• racter of the noble lord he was quite ready to believe his assertion that he had not intended a surprise. On his oen part and on that of his colleagues, he had stated in the most explicit manner that they believed entirely what fell from the noble lord, and even wont so far as to thank him for the handsome manner in which he had withdraan his motion. It was quite true, as the noble lord now said, that in strict regnlar:ty no previous notice of au amendment was required, and in that way the Go vernment might, the moment the Commons' amendments came up to that house, have moved at once that they be agreed to. But th e overnment were anxious that the house should have some little time to consider the aelendments, and with that view put off the considera tion for three days. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack was going to give notice for Monday, when, to their infinite surprise —it might be a foolish surprise, but it was felt by the independent as well as the Government members on that side of the house—they were told that Lord Redesdale was about to move that the amendments should be considered that day three months. He (Lord Granville) replied that it was impossible, but on asking the noble lord as to his intentions, the latter replied that the rumour was correct. At that time there were hardly any peers in attendance on the Ministerial side of the house, while, by a singular coincidence— of course purely accidental—there was a large attendance of the opposi tion. (Hear.) In that way, whatever might have been the noble lord's intentions, the effect was a complete surprise, and the ocly course left for the Government was not to take any step at all with respect to the bill. Now, supposing the noble lord to have succeeded in n( l .:, , ativing the motion for adjournment, he was at a 1038 to know whether the noble lord would have taken the bill out of the hands of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, and moved at once that It should be con sidered that day three months, As he had said he fare, he hail not the slightest hesitation in expressing Lis bm lief in the truth of what the noble lord said, but at the Fallle time ho must positively declare that his notice bad quite the effect of a surprise. There was something very indefinite in the word "when," but hearing such a notice cesual;y eiven ' he should at once have concluded that it meant the ordinary time when the amendments were brought under the co n sid era ti on o f th e h ouse b y th e G o - I vernment. Lord ST. LEONARDS said that the only omission in the noble earl's speech was the absence of any expression cf regret for words that might have been used in the heat of debate. The Duke ef ARGYLL observed that if the noble lord had persisted in his motion the effect would have been a complete fsurprise. The LORD CHANCELLOR said his noble and learned f i'snd (Lord St. Leopards) wished for some expression of ejet for any words that might have been personally 4 ffensive, but he (the Lord Chancellor) contended that none such had been wed. He was perfectly satisfied on _Friday evening that his noble friend did not intend any tick, but what he said was, that if the whole question cre " Lurked" by the noble lord's motion, the feeling cut of doors would bethat a track bad been played. I'no noble lord had cited two precedents, but let him ask the Loblo lord whether the notices were made by the promo ters of the bill or the opponents, because that made all the difference. He must say that he (the Lord Chan cellor) took the motion when he first heard it in the sense deficribed by his noble friend. Lord REDESDALE explained that he was bound by time to make his motion when he did, and still thought that nothing i n hi s procee di ng h a d j ustif i ed the tone in which be was addressed. Lord CAMPBELL said that previous to the noble lard, making his motion he was solemnly warned that the unienduients could not be consiiered until Monday, but sti 1 he persisted. Lord REDESDALE—I never mad© the motion. Lord CAMPBELL—True, the motion was not made technically, but still he (Lcrd Campbell) must say that the noble lord had surprised him much by his persist ence. He could only say that if the noble lord had suc ceeded it wonli have been equivalent to what was known at law as snapping a judgment-. The Marquis of BATH certainly must say that the language used on the other side was such as he had never heard in that house before. Vi,:count DUNGANNON bad never seen such n scene in their lordships' house as that which occurred the other night ; the conduct of noble lords on the other side was rather worthy of 'another placa "—(laughter)—than of that houte. The subject then dropped. The Commons' Amendments to theßurial Acts Amend meet Bill were considered and agreed to. The Commons' Amendments to the Militia Bill. were toesidered and agreed to. The Commons' Amendments to the Sale of Obscene n_neks Prevention Bill were considered and agree I to. -I)I VORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CLAUSES BILL. the L ORD CHANCELLOR m ove d th a t th e Ceta " ni_ Lord i:S-rnendraents be considered. ItEDESDALE moved that the Commons' taken into conside ra ti on th a t d a y s i x months, induced to take this course upon thr ee grounda—Pirst,b s reason of the c h arac t er and ineper`. na ance of the Coraeo alterations, which wer e of ought such magnitude that they ht not t o b e h urr i e dl y (I cussed or hastily d ecided upon. oeta.re l d n d t u h ri e ng n t e li x e t place be considered that what h ad 1:1b119b e present session showed the advare aee would ac crue trim a further consideration of the the thitd place, he thought that the bill pat e n t i i ; hv an t. d a , in matters which were within the scope of its object tba therefore it was imperfect, and as an imperfect measure i'.'ought not to be further proceeded with. In conAider il ig the first Lranch of the q lestion, he would at on ce a !mit that seine of the amendments made in the ether house wet° decided improvements upon the bill as it left that house ; other amendments, again, were of little moment either one way or another, whilst others were wave in their character, and objectionable in their effect. Tee first alte ra ti on i n th e measure wh;ch fell within t . i feat categoey was that which had reference to a local jurisdiction in ca , ,es of judicial separation. The clause, 7"ntsneled, gave this jurisdiction to the judges of as ), and to the chairmen of court z of quarter selion. Emil as regarded the judges of ass:ze, there were reascne yr,ndering th a t coutee not entirely free from objection, but as regarded the court of quarter sessions the previ a:ens o: the 1)11 were most objectionable. There were no rules existing by which the practice before such is tribunal as "the chairman of quarter sessions" could be regulated ; there was no bar accustomed to the conside ration of the peculiar cases which, upon such questions, would arise, and, in truth, the objections to such a clause were manifold and weighty. The house would not so multi wonder at this when they consider ed that this clause was not the result of care and consid oration, but was introduced—he thought he might say se mewhat hastily—in order to meet an abstract resolution of the House of Commons that soma local jurisdictions should be given. For his own part be certainly thought that the object of that resolution would be better gained by the appointment of another judge of the matrimonial court who might than take circuits throughout the coun try. Passing by some minor alterations in the bill, with respect to which he did not offer any argument to the house, the next amendment to which it was necessary to call their lordships' attention was that which extended toe grounds upon which the wife should have divorce. He regretted to say that he thought that all of these altera tions were injudicjous. The first of these amendments . gave the wife a right to divorce upon the happening of adultery on the husband's part, committed within the conjugal residence. The meaning of this amendment was no doubt to provide againet the case of a man introducing a mistress into hie house and insulting the wife with her presence. Batas it had been pointed out when the bill was in that house, such a case was met by the words giving di vorce upon adultery with cruelty ; for there was nothing to limit that word to mere animal violence. The effect of this amendment would, however, be to place a most ob jectionable power of obtaining divorce in the wife's hands —one which she might be led to avail herself of in a mo ment of passion and under circumstances which would give her cause for great regret when it was too late. The next amendment gave the wife the ritiht to divorce in the case of adultery coupled with rape. Now, it seemed to him that rape was not an offence against the wife, but against the woman ravished, and hence he did not con eider that there was any reason for giving the right of divorce on the ground that rape was added to adultery. The next amendment introduced the words "sodomy and bestiality." He much regretted the introduction of these words; they introduced an entirely new series of ideas into the bill; they related to offences that could be seldom proved, and on grounds of public morality he ob jected to the alteration. There was then an amendment enabling the court to bring the paramour before it as a respondent. Of the effect of this he would not pretend to judge, but leave it to those whose judicial functions ena bled them more clearly to form an estimate of its advan tage or disadvantage. The next amendment was of con• siderable importance, and in introducing it to their notice he would remind them that throughout the former die cu ision of this question one of the great objects held out to their lordship was the abolition of the action of trim. con. Everybody knew how forcibly that action had been denounced, and how eloquently its evils had been des canted upon. But this clause embodied a provision giving damages--let them mark the word—to the husband in case of the adultery of the wife, and it provided, more over, that the inquiry into the assessment of damages should be conducted the same as the procedure on a trial for Grim. con. It might be said that the clause also provided that the court might declare how the damages would be apportioned, and that it might, if it saw fit, settle them upon the children ; this, however, in no way aff , :cted the question as regarded the of jection able principle of giving damages for the loss of a wife's fidelity. The neat important amendment was that having relation to those clergymen who might have scruples with regard to the marriage of persons who bad been devorced: To this amendment he did not in anywise object, and indeed had it gone further it would have had hie concurrence. But with respect to the next amendment which enabled parties, where an incumbent ol jected to marry them, to be married by another clergy man in that incumbent's church, he saw many serious objections. He would remind the house that persons could now by law be civilly married before the registrar, and these could take the certificate of that registrar before a c'ergyman and demand to have the mar riage ceremony performed. This would, he thought, enable persons coming within this act t i be married at any place by any clergyman not objecting to marry them, and it was therefore unnecessary that that ceremony should be performed in the church of the incumbent who had conscientious objections to such a course. He certainly must most earnestly warn the house against this amendment, which would lead to evils, the end of which no one could foretell. He had now touched upon the principal amendments of the bill, and he thought without adding one word more he ha I said enough to convince the house that these amendments were of too grave a character to be proceeded with at that period of the year. (Hear ) He would next proceed to consider, and that very briefly, the second reason in support of his motion, viz , that the client ry ought to have further time to consider this bill. The fact was, that the bulk of the people had never considered this question until it became pretty plain that:the bill would pass the other house,a pei iod so recent that no one could contend that sufficient time had transpired since then for the due consideration of so impor tant a question. In proof of this he would point to the peti ions even at that moment coming in from the clergy, men who, from their position, would bo expected to give an early attention to the subject. And be would also venture to instance himself as showing the effect which due consideration of this question produced. When the subject first presented itself to his mind, be was one of those who thocght that facilities for divorce might be safely extended, but further consideration had shown him his mistake. And he might point also to a distin guished member of the other house—a man not likely to be thoughtless in matters appertaining to religion— in whose views a further consideration of this subject had made considerable alterations. Under such circum stances be thought that for the country generally further time should be given. The remaining ground upon which he supported this motion was the imperfect na ture of the bill. Their lordships would find that this bill was confined wholly to England, and thus whenever the subject matter of it was to be extended to the rest of the empire, a further act would be required. After all, the gravest question of all involved in the amendments was the extension of the grounds of divorce. Their lordships male rote extension—the Commons made a very material one; and in this respect the bill was essentially altered. There was, in fact, considerable difference in the conclusions come to by the two houses, and the question was whether this difference was to be settled as the result of deliberate judgment, or merely to suit the wishes and convenience of the Government. He trusted that their lordships would accede to the amend ment which he bad proposed, considering that in a matter requiring so much consideration it would not be decorous to legislate with anything like haste. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, in support of the motion that the consideration of the Commons' amend ments be postponed for six months, that his noble friend had addressed to their lordships arguments founded on a variety of considerations ; but the greater portion of those arguments had no reference to the question whether the amendments should be considered, but related to the question whether those amendments were or were not improvements in the Lill. In the first part of his address his noble friend pointed out the alte rations made by the Commons, which he represented as anything but improvements ; but whether these altera tions would make the bill better or worse would be matter for discussion when the particular amendments referred to came under consideration, If his noble friend had been able to show that the amendments were totally new, and that they came upon their lordships by sur prise tliera might have been some weight in his argument, but in point of fact they wera alteratious, with the merits or demerits of which their lordships must have become familiar through the debates which hld taken piece .in that house. First, as to the police or impolicy of Giving jurisdiction to local courts. On that point he did not hesitate to say, he thought it would have been better to legislate by degrees ; but at all events, the subject was discussed when the bill was before their lordships, and the other house having since decided that it was desirable to establish heal as well as central courts, the question was one with which they were perfectly competent to deal. The next question was the extension of the grounds on which marriage was to be dissolved iu favour of wives. Their lordships included in the bill two grounds, and the House of Commons had added a third. The only reason wby the commission of an unnatural offence was not included by their lord ships was that it was considered undesirable to defile the bill by allusion to such a subject especially as the case was one in which according to the old practice parties would be entitled to a divorce. As au objec tion to the consideration of the amendments, this omis sion was most absurd, for the case would not arise perhaps more than once in a century. There were, indeed, one or two other grounds of divorce intro duced into the House of Commons, but they came under the same disgusting category as the other. The com mittee of their lordships, which sat two or three years ago, theught that bigamy with adultery ought to be a ground of divorce ; he yielded to that view, and the House of Commons had added the case of rape ; and the case in which the mistress was brought to reside in the conjugal residence. It could not be said their lordship's were not competent to discuss those amend ment. The next alteration to which his noble friend alluded, was that which related to the clergy. No one could say that that was a subject which their lordships were not in a condition to dismiss, seeing that they had had four divisions at four different periods in reference to it. As regards the question of criin. con., he stood in this position : he did not quite see his way to the course taken by their lordships in abolishing the action, because he felt that there might be cases in which pecu niary loss would arise from adultery, and that it would not be safe to abolish it without providing some sub stitute. Their lordships came to an opposite conclu sloe, and thought the action should be at once abolished ; and what the House of Commons had done was not simply to restore the action, but t* - ) provide that any money which might be awarded should be ,ottled, as the court might think fie, fur the wife or fsr the children of the marriage. As regarded the limited operation of the bill, it must he recollected that the law of marriage and divorce was to a great ( xtent governed by domicile, and that it was (xtremtly difficult to legislate hi one country for what was to be done in another. It might be that their lordships would see their way to lei late for India, but the erebahility has that on such a eubject India must legislate for itself, and diffietetypriense7tpl if it turned out that it lied not the poser of doing so the I Milt are might have to confer it. As to the olijccion that the bill was tto extend to Ireland, there was a state of the po applying its provisions to that country (lur ing the Sueisai.ori. There were peculiarities in the consideration ; P at islir of Ireland which required special concurrently it was impossible to pass a bill for that country present one. It was saidthaty with the passing of the give thee this bill ought to be al cero missi s z . ev ec a t s issued to tiry n further time for post poned,con- sidering in order to the subject. What time was now nearly ten in quireyears a in g t o o si t n h e is e m a os r t oy imptha n t It was no oat distinguished party commission. One of the moat distinguished members of it was his right hon. friend Mr. Wel. pile, who concurred in the recomm endations which were framed. The right hon. g entleman was not in favour o f the present government, nor was he in any w a y oppesed TUESDAY EVENING- AUGUST' 25, 1857. ss was hie friend Vice- Chancellor Wood) who. oouola very different from Mr. Walpole his to the church. Then, friend of -political bias,' was, like him , a strong again, OW"' cue church, nd would not be disposed to d o anr. using which be thought at all likely to det rac t f rom its sefe ; lness. The commission having made their report, the announcement was made more than once by the ge overnment that a measure would be introduced to carry the recommendations of the commissioners into effe,ct. A bill was accordingly introduced in the year ; it was revived in the two succeeding years ; this yr..:ar it was again introduced, and after very great discussion in their lordships' house and in the other house, the bill had received the approbation of both houses of parliament. Again, it was said that these amendments came before them at a very bite period of the session. What did that mean ? Was there any un necessary delay in introducing the bill into that house ? On the contrary, it was introduced on the first day that was available ; it was discussed in the other house of Parliament as soon as possible; it was discussed there hour after hour, and night after night, with most praise worthy pertinacity, and it now came back to their lordships for the consideration of the amendments. To say that a bill could not be passed under such circum stances would be to say in effect that no bill could ever be passed which had undergone much discussion and amendment in the other house of Parliament. (Hear.) The question now to be decided was not whether the amendments were satisfactory, but whether they should be considered. He did trust that their lordships would not yield to the motion of his n o ble f r i en d, b u t wou ld a t once proceed to the consideration of the amendments. Lord ST. LEONARDS said the question was not what were the merits of the amendments, but whether, when their lordships' hours were numbered, they had sufficient time for considering them. He had asked the Lord Chancellor whether he was prepared to maintain the amendments as they stood, and understanding that he was, he felt compelled to vote with his noble friend (Lord Redesdale). Nothing could have induced him to do so had they not been asked to accept the amendments in stead of considering them in the ordinary manner. Their lordships should consider the position of noble lords who assisted in passing the bill as it went down to the Commons, and who were now absent, having had no reason to suppose that such important alterations would be made. He did not blame the Government for the delay which had occurred, but nevertheless it was a fact that there never was a great social measure which under went greater alterations at a late period of the session. As regarded the original court, he entirely approved of the alterations made in its constitution. But what was to be sai 1 with regard o the proposed local courts The whole thing might well be laughed at. (Hear, hear.) The House of Commons declared by an abstract resolu tion that they would have local ,courts ' which would bring relief to every man's door. H e deprecated the spread of courts of divorce over the whole land ; and though he desired to see the remedy extended to the poor as well as the rich, he did not wish to see every possible facility given for obtaining divorce. The House of Commons having determined that there should be local courts, the question where they were to get them. It was first proposed to resort to the county courts but that proposition /vas immediately scouted. It was afterwards determined to have the matter to a judge at assize, or to quarter sessions, or to a Queen's counsel, Or a serjeant-at-law, to ha named by a judge. As to the quarter sessions, it was ludicrous to talk of it. Why one case of divorce wool f occupy more time than was ordi narily consumed by the whole sitting. Let theirlerdehips conceive of country magistrates, whose time was so limited, being called upon to add divorce cases to the usual business of quarter sessions. Moreover, he should like to hear what courts of quarter sessions generally knew abut the procedure of the ecclesiastical courts in relation to divorce, or how they were qualified to decide such questions as alimony, and the maintenance, educa tion, and custody of the children, Divorce was a thing which magistrates at quarter sessions could not cope with —the attempt to do so must inevitably break down. Then again, with regard to judges at assize, he never was more astonished than he was at the proposal to add the trial of divorce cases to their duties. He would appeal to his noble and learned friend near him (Lord Campbell) whether the moment a question of detail—for example, a question of account—arose at assizes, it were not cus tomary for the judges to say, " We have not time to hear it, the case must go to arbitration I" Supposing there were all the necessary appliances, it would be nothing extraordinary if a divorce case occupied a week. But where were the appliances to be found? Where were the judges or the counsel at nisi prius who were familiar with the procedure of the ecclesiastical courts I Again, if the judge deputed a Queen's counsel or a serjeant-at-law to discharge his functions, how was this to be done when there was no court f How was a jury to be summoned ? Whoever framed that part of the bill must b 3 con tented to be told that it could not possibly work. The result would be that divorce cases would have to be carried to the. court of appeal, where they ought to be taken in the first instance. As to the fees to be paid to the persons entrusted with the per formance of these duties, he should like to know whence they were to come. It could hardly be intended to throw the burden on the country ; while on the other hand, if the suitor had to pay them he would be placed in a worse position than other suitors who bad courts provided fur them at the public eupense. Their lordships had neither the knowledge, the material, nor the time to decide on the proper constitution of these courts, and he would sug gest that the clause should be struck out, on the under standing that a bill should be brought in next session to settle the form of jurisdiction. The next important clause was that which settled the causes which would entitle a woman to a divorce. This question had been most care ' fully considered by their lordships in the house, and by the select committee upstairs. By the bill introduced in 1856, a woman was entitled to a divorce only in cases of incestuous adultery or bigamy. When the present bil' was referred to the select committee a great many ques• tions were mooted. It was proposed to allow rape as one ground, but the committee decided against that ; the other new grounds now in this bdi were not even mooted, and the house ought not to pass a bill stained with such terms. This bill would be placed in the hands of the purest women of England, and they ought to have some respect for them. There was another case which required great consideration before it was adopted, the case of adultery committed in the conjugal dwelling; this eas borrowed from the French law, which allowed a separation if the husband teok a concubine into the common dwelling. There was, however, no instance of such a thing in this country, and there was no necessity to provide for it; the point was considerei by the com mittee upstairs, and they unanimously agreed not to in sert the provision. The effect of it would be to give a woman who wished to get rid of her husband the oppor tunity of doing so ; she would only have to get a clever lady's.maid, and throw temptation in his way. They had already given women greater guards than ever she had before, and they ought not to go any further, and give her too much power. The next point was as to the action of crirn. con. He had in committee proposed clauses to abolish that action, but to give the jury power in certain cases to award the husband damages from the adulterer. Consi derable discussion arose, and it was at last agreed to aboli,h the action. The question then arose what was to be substituted, and in the bill as it went down the court was empowered to impose a fine on the adulterer, and order him to pay the whole or any part of the costs. The House of Commons struck out the power to impose a fine, but inserted a clause that in certain cases the pe titioner might claim damages, his claim to be tried in an action. He (Lord St. Leonerd,) had read the clause several times', and he was utterly unable to perceive how that would differ from the old action of trim. con. There was, indeed, a proviso that the court should have power to direct hew the fine was to be disposed of, and might order a portion to be settled on the wife or children. They had abolished the action of min. con, because they believed it to be a disgrace to their jar's' radence, whin it had been compulsory on the part of the husband to b r ing that action, but it would now be voluntary, and there would be every inducement to collusion between him and the wife, to obtain a provision for her at tee expsnse of the adulterer; and he coull do so without a4sing for a judicial separation. The only le nalieiug question was that as to the position of the clergy under this bill. He had the greatest respect for the conscience of every man, but he could not consent to place the clergy in opposition to the law. If they believed the re• marriage of an adulteress to be against the law of God, let them retrace their steps; but if they believed it was not, let there be no exception, but make that the law which had been done for 200 years, without any ol jsc tion on the part of the clergy. By the bill as it stood parties were enabled to be married before a registrar, and might, if they wished, afterwards get the sanction of the Church by a religious ceremony ; but it was optional with a clergyman to perform it or not. In his opinion no such exception should be, it would lead to endless mis chief. Fancy the position of a cle-gynaan who would be forced to give the use of his church atter refusing to per form the ceremony. He would not support such a prs also, as he believed it hostile to the best interests of the country- He would support the motion of his noble friend (Lord Redesdale), because he objsc'ed to having the amendments of the House of Commons forced in wholesale upon them. Earl GRANVILLE said the noble and learned lord and the noble baron who moved the amendment were fully justified in entering into the merits of the amend ments, but the question before the house was whether they would then go into the consideration of them or postpone them for six months, and he therefore did not feel called upon to fellow all the details, more especialle as if the amendment now moved was carried, the bill would be postponed for this session. The noble" ler I who moved the amendment said his object was to venti late the subject ; but it was possible to ventilate a ques tion too much. But he never remembered a measure that had been so fully discussed in both houses ; and with a delicate question so closely connected with the social i happinesst shouldb e and decided once, a nd e o h p o l e c , s desir able not see any public advantage from the postponement of the hid. With regard to the period of the session, that could only be considered as it affected the attendance of their lord ships during the session, and he had stflom seen so many present as at that moment, an - I if some of the moot eminent members of that house were absent, he believed it was owing to the fact that they in the main agreed with the Government. (Hear, hear.) The E trl of CARNARVON (who rose amidst cries of "Question") said that he would not detai❑ the house for more than a minute. The bill contained 73 causes, of which 59 were either new or altered causes; 5 clauses were struck out ; clauses were entirely added by the other house ; 33 clauses had bean altered, of which 19 had been altered materially and 14 verbaly. After this simple analysis he thcught it impo,sible to call this the original bill. (Hear, hear.) After a few words from EArl GRANVILLE, their lc rd ships divided— - For the amendment. 44 Against The LORD CHANCELLOR then proceeded to state tie nature of the amendments which had been made in the clauses. On coming to the clause which gives jade diction in cases of judicial separation to the judges of assize and courts of quarter sessions, the noble and learned lord said that, admitting the principle of local jurisdiction, he could not conceiye any better local tri bunal for this purpose than the jud ges of assize. He did not believe the practise of postponing cases in c-nse queues of the pressure of business by the judges of assise was as common as had been represented. He had heard of euch a thing, but after some practice as a judge of assize he must say he never saw as yching of it. Any difficulty of that kind, however, woull be provided for by the new rules and regulations which it would be in the power of the court to make; one of which rules would ne doubt provide that petitions should be pre sented in sufficient time, so that the judges might know what ceuees of the sort were coming on. With regard to the court of quarter sessions the feelings of the House of Commons was, no doubt, this—that the poor should have a court of easy access as well as the rich for the decision of these cases. The gentlemen who presided over those courts were cognisant of the feelings and habits of the persons who resorted to thorn No doubt these courts were open to objection, as any local tribunal they could constitnte would be; but as the principle of the bill was left rant( uched, and as something must be left experimental, he trusted their lordships would not object to the giving of jurisdiction in these cases to the courts of quarter sessions. They proposed the best ma chinery at their hands, and if that was found inefficient they must try some other. Lord MONTEAGLE said the prir&ple of the bill was to give a better tribunal for the trial of divorce cases, hut the bill as it now stood not only failed to give an improved tribunal, but by a most ingenious process it extracted from the old tribunal all that was worst, and combined therewith elements of mischief peculiar to the bill itself. He thought it likely that it would pro duce infinite confusion if in addition to the primary duties of judges of assize this new jurisdiction was to be cast upon them. But in selecting the courts of quarter sessions for determining these questions of marriage and the support of the children, and the provi sion to be made for the wife, he thought they selected that tribunal which beyond all others possessed every possible disaivautage. (Hear.) He spoke in the pre sence of those who took part in the proceedings of the proceedings of the courts of quarter seseions, and he put it to them individually wheth er t h ey felt competent to carry the provisions of the bill into effect. Would any peer rise up and say that he felt competent to do so ? Would the noble marquis who was so familiar with the business of the court of quarter sessions (Salisbury) say that he felt competent ! Would you, my, lord, or you? He made this appeal nominal because he knew if every peer was to vote in accordance with his personal feelings how tho decision would be 1 His noble and learned friend recommended this change because the tribunal was cheap ; but an article was not cheap at any price if it was bad, and he believed this tribunal came under that description. He did not object to the gisting of jurisdic tion to the recorders, who were learned men selected by the crown, but he had a strong objection to the giving it to the courts of quarter sessions, which, he believed, would not give satisfaction. He therefore moved to omit the words, "or to the courts of quarter session'. The Earl of HARD WICKE said that the courts of quarter sessions performed their duties at present with satisfaction, but that would not be the case if these courts had to discharge the duties which this bill would cast upon them. Is was ridiculous to expect that the gentle men woo dispensed justice in those courts would be able to decide the nice and delicate questions of law which they would be called upon to decide under this bill. He did not think that the di-tinction drawn by the noble lord of courts for the rich and courts for the poor would be received with satisfaction by the people of England. In times gone by, when Whig gentlemen were out of office, and were pandering, as Whigs did, to popular out cries—(laughter)—they spoke of the magistracy as in competent, and that it would be better to have a paid body of magistrates. If this bill passed it was very likely indeed that the magistracy would be found incompetent to discharge these novel duties, and then there would be a glorious opportunity of introducing the principle of a paid ma agistraey. Lord WYNFO RD said the principle of the bill, as it left their lordships' house, was to give exclusive jurisdic tion to a particular court ; but if the courts of quarter sessions were to have jurisdiction, it could no longer be said that the bill proceeded on the principle of giving exclusive jurisdiction. The constitution of these c marl and their mode of conducting business wholly unfitted them for dealing with divorce cases. What would be come of uniformity of decision, when judges of assiz'a recorders, and courts of quarter sessions all dealt with these cases ( Rear.) Earl POWYS said that chairmen of quarter sessions had a right to protest against an important clans of duties being thrust upon them, as was proposed by this bill, involving points of law of which they had no special knowledge. The business would be chiefly in, the heeds of attorneys, not perhaps of a very reputable class, who woul I be constantly striving to set husband against wife in village communities, for the sake of making business. (gear, hear.) Great injury, too, would result from the public discussion at every quarter sessions of cases of this kind. Earl FORTESCUE, while agreeing that the judges of assize and recorders were as c mapetent as any court could be to deal with Tuitions of divorce, saw great ob jection in allowing courts of quarter sessions to decide upon those cases. The Duk of SOMERSET also thought it unwise to delegate this power to the quarter sessions, and hoped that the Government would give way on this point. Earl GRANVILLE said that, as the feeling of the house appeared t I be almost universal against this por tion of the clause, he would not insist on the retention of the words "court of quarter sessions for the county or borough." The LORD CHANCELLOR altered the clause as proposed, and intoduced corresponding alterations in some subsequent clauses. Lord ST. LEONARDS took objections to the fees that would be chargeable in the assize courts, and urged that they would be a hardship on poor men. He also objected to that part of the clause which authorised the judges to refer questions of divorce to members of the bar. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that in every commis , ion of assize there were associated with the judges all the Queen's counsel and sergeants who went the cir cuits ; and the clause only provided that the same course should be pursued with regard to these causes. It was extremely unlikely that an im p o rtant divorce c ause wou ld be lest to be tried by a Queen' is counsel; the proviso was only introduced to meet au emergen c y, an d to preserve the form of the commission the same as at present. After a few words from 'Lord ST. LEOTARDS, his amendment was negatived without a division. Tne amendment of the Commons in the clause consti tuting the court was then agreed to. Some further amendments were discussed, but in a tone so purely o inversational that the purport of the dis cussion could not be gathered. On clause 25, Lord ST. LEONARDS moved the om i ss i on .of the words "adultery committed in the conjugal dwelling." The Duke of ARGYLL, though he retained his predi lection for the Scottish rule of the equality o f th e sexes, was fully prepared to admit the difference as to crimina lity between adultery committed by the husband and adultery committed by the wife. I n S cotland they never found a woman suing simply on the ground of thiltery, unless that adultery was coupled with desertion. Lord MONTEAGLE supported the motion. In cases like these it ought to be the obje c t o f the Legislature to thinyth imagine anythi ng guard against collusion, which was, i n point of fact, a proposer of th e wor d s un d er more frau likely dupon tothelead l to law. collusionßu t coul could e prop osa l o f t h e House of Commons! The they consideration bad entirely misunderstooi the enactment of the French law which he had attempte 1 t o copy. Th e French law gave a woman a right of divorce. in case her husband obtruded his, mistress into th e h ouse ; b ut as the clause stood a man might bring his concubine home, and the wife would have no remedy unless she could prove an act of adultery actually committed under her roof. What could be more easy than for the adulterous couple to live together to all intents and purposed in the conjugal residence, and yet evade the law by actually committing e'sewher e th e o ff ence which would give the wife a remedy In fact the clause, as it stood, was absolute nonsense. There was a case in the " State Trials" in which a member of their lordships' house, a long time ago, was convicted of one of the most horrible offences ever heard of—of having aided auuther man to commit a rap a in his own house upon his own wife. Yet even an offence like that would not entitle the wife to a divorce as the clause was now worded. (Hear, hear.) LoIcPREDEDA.LE pointed out the further objection that a divorce be granted on the ground of rape, and after wards a jury might decide that no such offence had been committed. The Earl of HARROWBY said it would no doubt be better to replace with general words the words under dis- CUSein. But what general words could they adopt•? The truth was, that because they could not find terms that would meet every case, they were asked to refuse the wife a remedy in the cases to which the clause woull Lard PORTMAN suggested that the ward " con victed" shoul I be inserted. The Bishop of OXFORD—WouId the words "adul tery accompinied iu the opinion of the court with cir cum.itances of disgraceful exaggeration," meet the views of Lard llatrowby ! (No, uo.) The house divided— Cantents 27 Non -contents The Common,' amendment was thus rejected. Lord ST. LEONARDS next moved to leave out the weld "rape" and the words that followed. Tile LORD CHANCELLOR sa id it wou ld no d ou bt be more agre ea hl d to moil, the words referred to; and the view the G overnment took of tho matter was, that as these cases would be extremely rare, the injured wife might NN•ry well be left to the remedy of a private Nevcrthelesp, af:er the opinion expressed by the Commons, he hoped their lordships wool I retain the words. , After some eonvrsation the house divided— C:intents 45 Non -contents The Gunrnora amendment therefore Etand. Oa clause 28. 29-16 The Bishcp of OXFORD moved to disagreo with the C intuons' anatndurent, striking out that portion of the clause which provided that the husband guilty of adu!- tery should not be enabled to sue for divorce. lie niove,l that the house disagree with the amendment, by which the words, "guilty of adultery, or ba3 been," were struck out. Tho house divided— 29 . 35 —4 CoTmhmeoncE.tlkuse, therefore, remains as .amended by tLe Contents ..:. Nun -contents Lord sr. LEONARDS moved to disagree with the Commons' amendinest to clause 30, the effect of the amendment beiog pract:cally to maintain the action of er m. con. T :e LORD CHANCELLOR ::aid clause 7, which the Commons had inserted, practically maintained the action of crim. con. When the Lill was before their lordships he gave way on that point to the opinion generally expressed by their lordship, but he was much struck with the argument of Lord Wensleydale, that there were eases in which the husband suffered greet pecuniary loss by the separation from his wife. He moved that the Commons' tynendrnents be agreed with. The Duke of ARGYLL supported the Commons' amendroentß. At present the action for crim. can. wi s r. sorted to in all cases because it was necessary, but un der this clause the fine, which was the substitute for that action, woul I only be inflicted in those cases in which the husban•l had sustained pecuniary I.)Fe. Lord DUNGANNON supported Lerd St, Leonards' amendment. The Bish , p of LINCOLN objected to the amendment made by the COMIIIOIIB, considering actions for criminal conversation highly tihje,ctionable. The Earl of bONOUGHNIORE also objected to the amendment. Lord REDESDALE said the amendment was an en couragement to husbands to commence actions for da mages on account of his wife's guilt. Tae Bishop of OXFORD said that every one of the evils which had been so eloquently pointed out as attach ing such actions would attach to the amendment which had been made in the bill. The Earl of HARROWBY defended the clause as amended, and hoped their lordships would agree to it. Tneir lordships then divided on the question whether the Commons' amendment be agreed to, and the num bers were— Content—Present Proxies 45-77 Non-content—Present Proxies 27-67-10 - - - • Lord ST. LEONARDS, with some warmtb,expressed his surprise that the Government should have called proxies. (Hear, hoar.) It was a violation of all under standing of the proceedings of the house. They were, as it were, in committee, examining a bill clause by clause. (Hear.) The noble earl, of course, could say ho had a right to take that course ' but no one could Pay that the vote just t a k en was the decision of the bona:). He had meant not to give any vote in opposition to the Government iu this debate, but he did expect fair play. (Hear.) But could it be said that this was a fair vote, when my lord this or my lord that were called by their tames to vote who had never heard a word of the clause —(" Question," and " Order, order," and cheers) —and which was carried by mere numbers V He complained of the manner in which this clause had been carried, and he believed the voice of the country would condemn it. Earl GRANVILLE said the noble and learned lord might take any course ho thought fit with regard to the management of the bu s i ness o f t h e h ouse on hs own side of it ; but he owned he was surprised that the noble and I,arned lord should object to proxies having been c tiled, and in what he had said on the subject he had stated several things which were not correct. This was not the first time that a minority had complained of proxies being called ; and in this very session the same com plaint was made by a noble lord ; and when he (Lord Granville) was about to rise to justify the course taken by the Government, he was anticipated by the noble earl the leader of the other side, who rose and gave the noble lord in question the greatest dressing that he ever sa w ad- ministered. The house was not now in committee. When the noble lord opposite (the Marquis of Bath) opposed a previous amendment, with that fairness which always characterised him, and on a division succeeded against the view of the Government, he (Earl Granville did not call fur proxies ; but the present was a question of far greater importance, and believing that he and his col leagues were in the right, and that the rejection of the amendment would endanger the passing of the bill iu the other house, he should have neglected his duty if he bad not called for proxies. The Marquis of BATH complained that the proxies had been used unfairly, without notice. It was only that morning that they heard that proxies were to be called. The Commons amendments were then agreed to. On the el tuse which legalises the marriage of persons divorced on the ground of adultery, but as amended by the Commons relieving the clergyman from the necessity of performing such marriages whoa he entertains con scientious objections to them, Lord ST. LFONARDS proposed to introduce words for the purpose of confining the clause to a present in stead of a prospective operation. The Bishop of SALISBURY remarked that there were cases where the clergy could not fairly feel a moral repugnance to marry persons who had been divorced for adultery, but believed that the effect of this clause wculd be to introduce disorder amongst the clergy. Indissolubility of marriage was the law of the church, but the clergy had no right to complain if the legislature made a law exempting certain persons from the opera tion of that law as far as their relations with the State was concerned ; but they had no right to interfere to prevent the church from carrying out its own laws in the church. He appealed to their lordships not to constrain the consciences of the clergy to do that which they be lieved contrary to the law of Christ. Let them make these marriages a civil contract that they would provide the relief required without doing anything to offend the consciences of the clergy. The Bishop of LONDON had no wish to go into the question whether marriage was indissoluble by the law of Christ. His opinion was that it was not indissoluble by the law of Christ. lla believed that the clause had been introduced and perhaps opposed by many under a wrong impression. A great number of the clergy, it was true, held that marriage was indissoluble, but a still greater number thought there was an unsuitableness in the solemn words of the wedding ceremony for the re• marriage of adult,rers, and on that ground alone did they object to perform the ceremony. He bil . eved, also, that it was under such impression that a large number of the clergy had signed the declaration, and it was on that ground, and en no other, that he wished to have the exemption here given become law. There were words in the marriage service, perhaps, not suitable to such marriages, and there being a vast number of the clergy who believed that marriage was dissoluble, that marriage after adultery ought to be dissolved, it was quite consis tent for such clergy to object to the use of the service under certain cirbumstaucas. There had been four divi sions in that hou-,e, but their lordships had not thought exemption expedient. The question went then to the lower house, where the clergy should be thankful for having obtained any concession. He should then advise the clergy to accept the compromise offered by these two clauses. (Hear ) If the present state of things was to go on much longer he believed that public morality would very much suffer, and therefore was be anxious that this bill should pass. If anything should prevent it passing this year the clergy might depend upon it they e ould have little chance of exemption in a second. (Hear, hear.) By law clergymen were obliged to marry divorced parties at present, and as to the p insli church clause, he did not think it at all likely that adulterous parties would often put it into force by insisting on being married in their own parish. It should not be forgotten that there was a strong notion abroad that the clergy wished to domineer over the laity, and the House of Commons wished the principle that the church be longed as much to the people as the clergy to bo esta blished, and therefore had they inserted the second clause. His advice to the cl-rgy was to accept both clauses, as he believed they were the best compromise that could be gut. (Hear, and cheers.) Lord DUNGANNON supported the amentment. He conscientiously believed the bill to be a most mischiev ous measure, and this clause one of the most mischievous portions of the bill. The Bishop of OXFORD was bound to say that the whole principle upon which this immunity for the clergy was asked fur was somewhat mistaken. It was supposed, I apparently, that the clergy were asking to be free from something to which other subjects were liable.. But the truth was, that what was asked was that the clergy should not be subjected to that from which all other classes were free. Let them recollect that they were not going to impose upon dissenting ministers the liability to marry persons divorced. (Hear.) It was only the clergy of one particular sect—the established church—who were to be so liable. It was no answer to say that the fact of their being ministers of the established church was a rea son for their being subjected to this duty. That might have been a jast argument when a person could not have married except through the established church, but now that dis,enting ministers were placed on the same footing as ministers of the church, b con verso, the latter ought not to be subjected to liabilities to which the former were not eubject. He would ven - tura to submit to their lordships that this was not a case in which the government ought to use proxies, and he did so because this was a matter so much of detail, that, altlough the prinriple involved was a great one, a noble lord who held a-proxy could not say for certain which way the nobleman whose proxy he held would himself have'voted. For his own part he would rather sea no' h ing whatever granted to the clergy than sea the bill in its present shape. There was not a wcrd in the clause staying the bishop, and he would not hesita'e to say that if he knew of any one of these interlopers coming to a church, he would meet him at tise church door by staying him with a prohibition. His object was to prevent the revival of the old Fleet cuarrias,ies. Who was it , that would come ist ) a parish to perform these marriages ? Why, it was only the wretched, skulking man, who was lying away from the parish on account of debt, hardly venturing to show his face anywhere, and he would come merely to get the miserable fee which he might obtain by intruding into the parish of his brother clergyman who was spending all his strength for the good of his flack. Often had he heard measures objected to in that house, on the grsund that they would interfere with the discipline of the clergy; but was anything ever before contemplated equal to the sending into a parish a man who had no qual fication whatever, except that for a cer tain reward he was ready to do a c=rtain job, which he knew to be most hateful to those who were labouring thsre in spiritual thin 4e ? He besought their lordships not to adept this p 'dist) of the clause; and if that were adopted, he should beseech them to reject altogether the boor, which would be a new disgrace and a new division of the clergy of the established church. Their lordships then divided— Contents Non -contents ,• 32 • Majority for the amendment of the House of Commons The Bishop of OXFORD then moved that their lord ships should disagree to the clause in foto. The Earl of CARNARVON supported the motion, observing that it would have been better if the Govern ment had denied all concession than attempted to disarm hostility by such means. • Lord REDESDALE also supported the motion. Had the clause came back without the addition, ho should have accepted it as a boon. As it stood, he felt bound to oppo se it. He did not believe any honourable clergy. man would seek to perform marriage in a brother clergy man's church against his will. The house then divided— Contents Non•contents 27-40 The clause as amended was theref re agreed to. The other amendments of the Commons were then agreed to, and their lordships adjourned at ten minutes psst one. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 3 o'clock. THE ANN WILSON—EMIGRANT VESSEL. Mr. COBBErT asked Mr. Secretary Labouchere, whether he had received any information with regard to an emigrant vessel called the Ann Wilson, which sailed from the Port of Liverpool on the 29th day of November last ; particularly as regarded the alleged overcrowded state of that vessel, the short supply of water, provisions and medical comfo r t s on b oar d , an d the fatal effects that ensued ; and whether any inquiry had been or would be made into the fact.? Mr. LABOUCEIERE said that no official informa• tion had been re-..eived from the colony, but application was made to the owners on the Government being made aware of the circumstances, and an answer was returned stating that she was properly provisioned, and although she was surveyed for 186 adults, she only took out 169. He thought there must be some misapprehension about the matter. An inquiry would be instituted, and if the owners were found'to blame, proceedings would be inst.!. tuted against them for the recovery of the usual penalties. THE GERMAN LEGION. Sir DE L. EVANS asked whether the German Le gion settlers at the Cape of Good Hope were at present in receipt of full pay as troops embodied, or the rate of pay specified in the army estimate for this year ; and also, what was the present numerical force of that corps, of all ranks Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the German Legion at the Cape had been called out as soldiers, and they were in receipt at this time of full pay. He hoped their embodiment would enable the Governor of the Cape to send a large number of the Cape troops to India. The German Legion numbered 2,300. AMALGAMATION OF THE WEST INDIA AND AUSTRALIAN MAIL COMPANIES. Mr. J. LOCKE, in the absence of Mr. Conirg harm, asked the Secretary 'of the Treasury, in what manner, if not officially, the Amalgama tion of the West Indian and Australian Mail Companies had come before him ; also, whether the chairman of the West Indian Ma 1 Company had not obtained the consent of its shareholders to an Amalgamation with the Australian Mail Company, under a more or less posi tive assurance that the e xisting Government contracts would be further extended without competition for two years ; and whether this was to be considered as a Go vernment guarantee for the sum of 910,0001. out of the public purse for services to be performed in the years 1862 and 1863?. Mr. WILSON said no amalgamation of the companies would be agreed to, that was not for the interest of the public, The usual postal guarantee would be given in this instance. COMMUNICATION WITH DUBLIN. Mr. CORRY asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the terms of the contract for improving the communication between London and Dublin had been finally settled ; and, if so, whether the contract had been executed : Also, what steps the Government had taken towards providing suitable accommodation, and the necessary appliances for the embarkation and land ing of mails and passengers at Kingstown and Holy head I Mr. WILSON said this negotiation had now been brought to a close, and the conditions of a contract to be drawn up and executed had been signed by the chair men of the respective railway companies. The necessary arrangements for carrying out the contract would be entered into, but it would take two years before they could come into operation. Four vessels would have to be built, and extensive arrangements would have to be made with a view of carrying out the contract ; and two years, it was thought, would be the shortest period in which they could be efficiently concluded. Sir D. NORREYS asked how long the Government had been occupied in „bringing about an arrangement that would take two years to complete ? (Laughter.) Mr. WILSON said the act under which the arrange ment was made was passed in 1855, and he entered into details to show that the Government had lost no time in bringing it about. THE LOSS OF THE TRANSIT. Mr. HENLEY asked the noble lord (Lord Palmer ston) if the Governmenthad received any further infor mation relative to the loss of the Transit ? Lord PALMERSTON said he bad received no ether information relative to the occurrence than the confused telegraphic dispatch which reached this country a few day. since. THE• 51sT REGIMENT. Major KNOX asked if any answer had been given by the War-office to a memorial from the officers of the 51st Regiment, praying that their field allowance during the late war might be paid to them.? Sir J. RAMSDEN said that he was at first under the impression that no answer had been sent to the memo rial, but on inquiry he found that it was sent more than a month ago, but by mistake it was addressed to the officer commanding the 38th, instead of the 51 -t Regi ment. (Laughter.) He had applied to the former to know if it had been forwarded to the latter, but had as yet received no answer. He would, however, take care that it should be forwarded to the 51st. THE TRANSPORT OF TROOPS ACROSS THE ISTHMUS OF SIIEZ—ATLANTIC CABLE. Mr. D. GRIFFITHS asked if her Majesty's Govern ment had any intention of making use of the remaining part of the Atlantic cable to improve the communication with Alexandria ; and, also, whether it was true that the Paella of Egypt had consented to allow the passage of troops across the Isthmus of Suez, and if her Majesty's Government intended to take advantage of it ? Lord PALMERSTON said that the cable was not the property of her Majesty's Government and, could not be without a vote of that house sancti.)ning the pur chase. Without venturing to give an opinion on the de sirability or not of so doing, he should remind the hon. gentleman that it was impossible to make such a propo sition at that period of the session. He was not aware that application bad been made to the 'Paella of Egypt for permission to transport troops across the Isthmus of Suez, and said that on is former ,occasion when such permission was granted the passage of troops was attended with considerabledifficulty and expense. CAVALRY BARRACKS.—HYD E- Mr. KER asked the Under Secretary for War, whe ther there was any intention of removing the Cavalry Barracks at the Kensington-gate of Hyde-park ? Sir J. RAMSDEN said there was, as soon as anothEr site could be obtained. ARMY PAY. Cal. FREESTUN gave notice that early next ses sion he should move an address to her Majesty praying far an increase of the pay of captains and subalterns in the regular army. RUSSIA AND THE BLACK SEA. Viscount RA YNHAM asked the noble .ord (Lord Palmerston) if it was true that, in violation of the treaty of Paris, Russia had sent a larg e nava l f orce i nto t h e Black Sea to operate against the Circassians ? Lord PALNIERSToN said that: indePendently of the treaty of Paris, Turkey, by the treaty of Adrianople, ceded the east coast of the Black Sea to Russia. Russia was at present engaged in hostilities with the Circas sians on the northern part of that coast, where she had sent some of her cruisers she was entitled to keep in the Black Sea to co-operate against them. lie did not ap prehend that by so doing Russia had exceeded her powers. _ _ • The Lords' amendments to the Joint-Stock Companies Amendment Bill and the Probate and Letters of Ad-mi nistration' (Ireland) Bill were considered and agreed to. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. • Lord PALMERSTON moved that the house at its rising adjourn till tomorrow at two o'clock. Agreed to. Numerous returns having bean ordered, and some other business disposed of, the house adjourned at a quarter to four o'clock. {ADVERTISED[ ENT.] =Holloway's Ointment and Pill. —1337 the joint action of these two inestimable specifics all cutaneous eruptions are quickly banished from the system, the worst description of wounds or ulcers are easily eradicated, the morbific matter which nature finds injurious to her aro thrown out, and a thoroughly. healthy state of the blood and fluids is the result, restoring a sound mind and body to sufferers after other treatment has been found ineffectual ; in many cases saving surgi cal operations, and even life itself, by their miraculous power.— Sold by all medicine vendors throughout the world, at Professor Holloway's Establishments 244, Strand, London, and 80, Maiden-lane, New York; by .. Stampa, Oonctantinople ; A. Guidicy, Smyrna, and E. Muir, Malta. [ADVERTISEMENT. 1— SIGHT AND HEARING SPECTACLES POWERFUL TELESCOPES -- OPERA, - RACE, AND PERSPECTIVE GLASSES. —S. and B. Solenions, opticians, 39, Albemarle street, Piccadilly. Observe—opposite the York Hotel, W. By her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent for valuabl e and ex traordinary improvements in the most powerful and brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Race-course, Opera, and Perspective Glasses, *to know the distances. These Telescopes possess such e.traordinary power that some, three and a-half inches, with an extra eye-piece will show distinctly Jupiter's moons, Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same telescope can be seen a person's countenance three-and-a-half miles distant and an object from 16 to 20 miles. For the waist coat-Pocket, and are of larger, and all sizes, with - increasing powers acc4rdin4ly. The Royal Exhibition, 1851. —A valu able, newly-invented, very small, powerful, ,aistcoat-pocket Glass, the 'size of a walnut, by which a person can be seen and known one and a-half mile distant They answer every pur pose on the Race-course and at the Opera-houses. Country scenery and ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 miles. They' are invaluable •for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. Opera, Camp, Perspective, and Race-course Glasses, with wonderful powers.—lnvaluable preserving Spectacle Lenses of the greatest transparent power. The great advantage derived from this invention is, that vision impaired becomes pre served and strengthened, and very aged persons aro enabled to employ their sight at tue most minute occupation—can see with those lenses of a much less magnifying power —and they do not require the frequent changes to the dan gorous effects of further powerful assistance. Perseus can be suited at tho mo remote part of the world by sand hi.; ono of the glasses out ot their spectacles in a letter,, and stating the diseince from the eye they can read :mall print with it., and those who have not made use of spectacles by stating their age. Deafness.—Nin, Discovery.—The oOrganicVibrator, an ex raordinarVy powerful, s:t.a,.l, newl y -i nvent d instrument for deafness, entirely different from all oth rs, surpassing anything of the kind that has been, or probably can, be produced. B e ing of the same colour as th e s hi n, is not perceptible. It enables deaf persons to hear dis'inctiv at church and at public assemblies; the unpleasant sensation Of s i ng ing noises in the ears is entirely retnov d, and it affords all the assistance that possibly could be desired._3l . tine marle-stree t, Piccadilly,—Opposite the York H o w , w. • .THE COURT-MARTIAL ON COLONEL CLARK. The general court-martial for the trial of Lieutenant-Colonel J. Clarke, Ist West India Regiment, re-asssembled at Chatham garrison yesterday, at 12 o'clock under the presi dency of Colonel H. Jervis, commandant of the Provisional Battalion, for the purpose of examining the witnesses for the defence. On the court being opened, the Deputy Judge-Advocate, Major H. D. Ellis, proceeded to read the defence made by the prisoner on Friday, the substance of which appeared in the Times of Saturday. The first witm-ss ex amined yesterday was Lieutenant W. C. O'Shaugh nessy, 2d West India Regiment, who was in Bathurst, Gambia, on the arrival of the prisoner, and proved that no hostilities had taken place immediately before Colonel Clarke's arrival, as was stated in the evid ence '-f or the prosecution ; and that there were already two field-officers at the station when the prisoner arrived. The witness was present at an interview held between Colonel L. S. O'Connor, C. 8., and the great chiefs, when the greatest anxiety for peace was manifested by them. Colonel O'Connor was Lieutenant-Colonel Hill's superior officer ; and on the receipt of a letter from the Adjutant-General separating the command of Gambia and Sierra Leone Colonel O'Connor commanded the whole of the West CoLst of Africa. The witness had delivered official papers to the prisoner from Colonel O'Connor, and the letter from the Adjutant-General authorizing the separa tion of the command of Sierra Leone and Gambia was kept by Colonel O'Connor at Government house. Captain J. S. Macauley, let West India - Regiment, was next examined with the view of disproving the fifth charge against the prisoner—. that of advising and directing Captain Pearson and Captain Macaulay not to obey the commands of Lieutenant-Colonel J. S. Hill. Before being ex amined Captain Macauley was warned by the Deputy Judge-Advocate that he was not obliged to answer any questions that might criminate him self, as that officer is under arrest and will be tr:e , l by a general court-martial for disobeying the orders of Colonel J. S. Hill. The witness stated that the prisoner had never advised him to disobey the commands of Colonel Hill, neither had Colonel Clarke ever forbidden him to obey Colonel Hill's order'. There was no conspiracy between witness, the prisoner, and the late Captain Pearson to mutiny, and if there were any dispute between Colonel Hill and any of the offcers of the Ist West India Regiment it was not the result of the pri soner's interference. Captain Pearson assumed the command of the companies on the occasion of the prisoner being placed under arrest, and witness never heard han censure Captain Pearson for doing so, but, on the contrary, continued on the same friendly terms with that officer as before. Witness had not seen any orders published for the prisoner to proceed to Gambia, but on the first opportunity after his arrival at Sierra Leone he had embarked for that station. After the prisoner had been placed in arrest the letter front the Adjutant- General was read on parade by order of Colonel Hill, and the witness believed that the contents of that letter were not known in the garrison until it was read on the 7th of Marc). It was understood by all the officers that the prisoner commanded the troops stationed in Africa. Lieut. G. Thorne, Ist West India Regiment, the prisoner's adjutant from 1854, until appointed to the general staff, was next called and examined for the defence, with the view of proving the great inconvenience which ac crued to the service by Colonel Clarke being sud denly sent away by Colonel Hill to take the com mand in the Gambia ; but after a few ques ti ons had been put to th e witness by the prisoner the Court adjourned until this day, when it will again assemble at 12 o'clock. There are still several witnesses tobe examined by the prisoner, to estate lish the points raised in his defence. Country Markets. CHELMSFORD—Auc. 21. The supply of wheat was large, but the bast sample! only in raquest at about is per qr, cheaper; infezior W" 5 be quoted 2s lower. Spring corn at last day's rates. Wheat, white, old, per s. qr. 52 new 62 red, old 50 new 50 B. , 0. 65 Oats, per qr " 24 66 Peas, Partridge 41 60 White 39 58 Boiling 39 46 Dun 40 62 I Beans, Tick 40 46 1 Harrow ticks 41 771 Mazagan 36 79 Ditto, new 36 Barley 35 Chevalier 40 Grinding 35 Malt 73 Chqvalier 75 Official Statomen t of the Qua) in the port of London, fro) Aug. 17 to Aug. 22, both r itities of Corn, &c an the following p, inclusive. 0 0:1 _ Colchester Harwich ll2 570 260 Leigh - Haddon 12128 28 77 30 62 1070 COLCHESTER— AUG. 22. A moderate supply of wheat, both old and new, and which was taken slowly at 2s per qr. lower. Barley for malting was is to 2s advance on last week's rates. Ben" and peas also the turn dearer. Prices to-daywere as follow :—Wbeat, white, 62s to 68 ; red, 58s to 625; barley, 42s to 46s ; cats, 28s to 30z ; beans, Mazagan, 40s to 44s ; middle and small, 448 to 48s; pear, white, 38s to 42s ; grey, 42s to 465. KIRKCALDY—Am 22. We had a fair supply of wheat to-day, but small of barley and oats. Sales slow. Inferior qualities ratlisr easier to bay, Two small parcels of new barley, condition poor, weighing 511bs, sold at 30s. Wheat. Barley. I - ,Oats. I Beans. I First 63s Od 3ls O 1 31s 61 i Os 0 i Second Third 28s Oct I 28s Oct 1 26s Od 1 Os 44 ET.—Aua. 24. the close of the market Wallsend, &a. 8 d. Hough Hall l6 ti Efaswell 18 u unwick l5 0 Braddyll l7 6 Eden Main l7 0 ,4osforth l5 2 Lambton 17 7 lletton lB 6 Montague 16 ! liaison's Hutton 17 v 91; sold, 69. ~ recaived )rts, from .. COAL MAR' Prices of Coals per ton a' d. s. Tanilold Moor l4 6 Tanfield Moor Butos 14 6 Bates's West Hartley ..,15 9 Htl'pool West Hartley 16 6 North Percy Hartley _l5 9 Wylam West Riding Hartioy 15 3 Wallsend, &u. Riddell l5 C I Evenwood 14 3 South Iletton 18 3 Ships at market LOCAL 811 ARE MARKET2.I. LIVERPOOL, Alm. 24. STOCK EXCHANGE.--The transactions in this inarke 6 have been rather dull, and prices have been about the same as last week. North Eastern, Berwick, 23i—Eastein Counties, 11i Midland, 831—Dutch Rhenish, 43 Lancashire and Yorkshire, 99 - -C , dedonian, 391-Grand Trunk of Canada, 12.11.3. Luxembourg Coast,, Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln, 391—Great Western of Canada, new, 3s. 93. p.--London and N(.rth-Wes terns, 102 I—South Eastern, 2l# ,—Lancaster and Oar lisle, now thirds, 7i p—Great Western, 53i—London and Vorth Western, shares new, Ils. 3d. d. MANCHESTER, AUG. 21. STOCK tXCHANQIC.—The market was moderately activ• to-day, and prices were steady. Blackburn, 7 0-16—* Great Western, 52i 3--London and North Westerns, 102 --Sheffields, 39 i—Leeds, 9 —Ditto, new, d. —Grand Trunk of Canada, 12 9.l6—Great Western of Canada, 2 0 15-16—East Lancashire, 96--Eastern Counties, — Caledonians, 39.1—Dovers, 21 i—Midands, B—Lanca shire and Yorkshira, 99. BIRMINGHAM, AUG. 21. STOCK EXCHANGE. —The market has been fair to-day, and prices have been about the same. Sheffield Stock, 40—Great Westerns, 53i I—Great Western, Binning' ham Guaranteed, 69 701. General Steam, 20 —Birming ham Banking Co., 31A — Warwick and Birmingham Canal, 24 BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 18th in - it., at Tomplemore Priory, Tomplemore, Lady Cs.rden. On the 24th hut., at Lower Tooting, Surrey, the wife of John George Bonner, Esq. OF A DAVOUTER On the 24th inst., at 18, Belsize-road, St. John's -wood, the wife of Wm. Legge ' Esq. Od the 23d inst., at 4, Perche3ter-square, the wif e of Edward M. Perkins, Esq. MARRIED, On the 211 inst., at Dyrham, Glocestershire, Douglas Robinson, Esq., Captain 72d Highlanders, second son of the late Sir George Bestßobinson, Bart., to Matilda Scott, eldest daughter of the Rev. William S. Robinson, rector of Dyrhatu. On the 22d inst., at St. Marylebone parish church, F. Death, of G"ldors - green, Hendon, to Sarah Fuller, of 7 8 s Gl oce ster-place, Portman-square. DIED On the 21st init., at Ramsgate, Sir William George Milman, Dart., o f th e Grove, Pinaer, and ,Levaton Woo"' lands, Devon, aged 76. Oa the 211 inst., at Elinburgh, Major-General A. Reid, C. 8., Bombay Army. On the 21st inst., at Stonehouse, Devon, Rich. Thom2. o, Admiral of the White, aged 81. On the 21 s t i nst, at Fern-hill, Blackwater, Col. Hugh Mitchell, l a t e o f t h e Grenadier Guards, aged 41. Oa the 21c1 inst., at Wolverhampton, Mr. E. Hunter, sen., aged 90. On Blackheath, the2lstinst. agedWil B. ia 7 m lg Maxwell, Esq., of Kidbroo Manor, On the 21st f iangsetd 2. ~ 7 at Manor-house, Stepney-green, Mr. Jeha Howard, —_—__ LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, Ng 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Save 7, in the county of Middlesex, Tuesday, August 25, 1557„ rrot 37m Cro at Cro 1?e ( Pic, ~ ct Cro ~,.