The Sun. — London, England, 1857-05-20 00:00:00

TIiTE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 20, 18 5 7,, power ought to unbind it, except in the case which was provided for in the divine law—namely, that of adul tery. The present remedy, it was true, was far mere , available to the wealthy than to any other class, but HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.) that was a misfortune which must always attend legal I The LORD CRANCELLoR took his seat on the woolsack proceedings. He should feeL it his duty to oppose the • at five o'clock. bill. THE EARL OF WESTMEATH AND THE Lord LYNDHURST said he had been unable to hear " GLOBE" NEWSPAPER, what had fallen from the right rev, prelate, hilt ho un- The Marquis of WESTMEATH asked the indulgence derstood him to support the bill. He (Lord Lyndhurst) of their lordships for a few minutes while he referred to could not disguise from himself the fact that there were a personal matter affecting his own character , great objections to this bill out of doors. Many eminent nexion with the Divorce Bill, which was set in con- down for authorities is that house were opposed to it, and there the second reading that evening. His attention was fore he felt some anxiety with regard to the reetilts of called to au article of a most vi r ul en t c h ar act e r this measure. He should enter into no scriptural argu in the Globe of last night, in which article his name ducat in the presence of the episcopal bench, but he was dragged iu, again and ag a i n , i n a ser i es o f s t a t e - might refer to the authority of the Scriptures, which ments which in themselves we re u tt er ly false, and which laid down the law that marriage might be dissolved he verily believed were lib e ll ous . I n res p ec t t o the for adultery, that alone was a sufficient weight of libellous part he could o n ly sa y t h a t th e p roper au th or ity authority upon that part of the subject. He ad would have to deal with it. A s th e y concerne d his mitted that, accordin to tie Roman Catholic Church, - honour, he took th e p resen t op p or t un it y o f s t a ti ng that the marriage tie could not be dissolved, as the mar be would afford th e p ar ti es an opportun ity o f sustaining ridge tie was looked upon as a sacrament. That cu them if they could. H e wou ld mere l y th en confine him- thorny, however, could not be traced beyond the self to a contradicti on w hi c h h a d b een sen t about on the Council of Trent, and it was an authority which the Pro parts of a lady wh o did hi m the ho n ou r of bearing his testants of Europe did not recognise. The rule of the name, who left his hom e a bout 38 years ago, and who did Protestant Church was that marriage was indiss o l uble, even in the case of adultery, according to the law as it not appear to be yet content. The statement is the Globe stands. was nodonbt made with the view ot vilifying his character. for evading the law and so had the The Roman Catholic Church had found means Protestant Church , Their lordships might naturally say that this being a pri in this country, and hence private legislation had been vats matter they had nothing whatever to do with it. It had recourse to. It was impossible in a country like this should, however, be recollected that the statements to maintain-such a principle. According to this system, were put forward in connection with the bill that was to be considered b their lordships this evenin He instead of the law being. equal , it was .practically C3n y therefore lost not a moment in stating when th g H e fined to the rich. It was, therefore, impossible that any e opportunity occurred in committee neon the bill he solid objection could be urged to the change which his should most certainly meet all these statements noble and learned friend desired to introduce. The ob- not only by direct denial, but by most positive . .;action to the change was, that the courts th a t would be established ied would uot.be available to any but the rich. and unrefutable evidence. He would be prepared this, d because the proceedings would be simply to show that they were founded on untruth, and were li b e petition,denied there would be no labyrinth of plead y ndtm an ey characterised by perjury and conspiracy, that . idence would be viva voce. Nothing lugusl'd and they never could have been made in any court where could be more simple. It was urged, however, that the testimony was viva voee, bat as it were behind the o p f ers t Lis gat a distance could not avail themselves curtain, in the way.the evidence was taken is the code new tribunal. The answer to that was that siastical courts. ifeleoped the noble and learned lord's local authorities would be empowered to hear the bill would entirely abolish the system. . evidence on the spot. and th e d ec ision would be given in INDIA. London. As to the difficulty of administering such a law In reply to a question from the Earl of ELLEN they had the example o f Prussia and the United States. ROW:PUGH, and there such a law was administered with the greatest Lord PANMURE said he did not feel mach alarm at the recent intelligence respecting the state of affairs in ease. The present syst em l e d to the greatest immorality. India. Care" would be taken b provide against any A man discovered his wife committing adultery. -He had serious consequences. Orders having been given to no remedy, and frequently the result was the most brutal have a portion of our troops re a dy to embark acid degrading violence. Would not a cheap legalremedy for [China, it had sines th en b een arranged in such a case tend much to diminish that state of immo er that four of those regiment s sh o uld em b ar k ear ly in rality. -Let them look at Scotland. Had any immorality ciaence of of next month for India. Th e reason w hy thi s d e l a y took ben law produced?' there in No, it had been conse directly th the extension e reverse. Last place was to prevent the troops arriving in India during year he objected to this measure because it did not go far the unhealthy part of the year. enough. The measure still was open to that objection in THE CONTINUOUS SERVICE. his mind. He objected to the principle of the bill from its Thal TALTIO r asked whether it was the intention of great inequality between the sexes—men made the laws her Majesty's Government to discharee the seamen in and women were the victims. The man cool? commit her Majesty's Royal Navy entered and engaged for con tinuous service ? adultery to any extent, and the wife was left without any Earl GRANVILLE said there was not the slightest remedy. The husband might be covered with every spe cies of infamy connected with adultery, and surelythe tri intention of tweaking faith with the British seamen. banal that was to be established ought to interfere in He thought the propositions that had been made to such cases. It was said if this were so the tribunals the seamen in the royal navy, on the contrary, were would be inundated with applications ; but they might ' very beneficial. • rest assured that such applications would not be had re- DIVORCE ,AND ?vIA.TRIKONIA CAUSES BILL. course to except after a long course of injury. He ap- Lord -LYNDHURST having explained certain cir pealed to the noble earl opposite upon this subject. In Scot s cunustances connect:al with a petition that had' been land the woman equally with the man could apply to the transmitted to him•for presentation to their lordships, law, and no inconvenience whatever had resulted from The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second that state of things. If this was the state of things in reading of the bill for matrimonial divorce, and in doing Scotland, why should it be different in this country ? St. so stated that the great principle he had endeavoured to . Augustine put the case of the wife upon the same footing adhere to in the bill which he proposed was the indisso as that of the husband. He made no distinction between lability of the marriage tie, except in the ,most extreme cases. The noble lord proceeded to refer to the early no- the cases. Let them recollect that th e y were l eg i s l a ti ng tions of the Church of Rome with respect to this iodise°. against the other sex. They were men l eg i s l a ti ng aga i nst ' women. As to the weight of authority u p on th e su bj ect, lubility of marriage, but under certain circumstances it it was in favour of the views which h e a d v o ca t e d. Wh en Wits found impossible to adhere to the principle, such, a man beat his wife or desert e d h er , it s h ou ld b e sufficient for instance, as the pre-contract, or consanguinity of the parties, which would tend to invalidate the marriage, and ground for divorce. The argume n t s f or thi s a pp eare d t o to such an extent was this doctrine of consanguinity car- him to be unanswerable—they ar o se ou t o f th e ver y reed, that on one occasion a marriage was dissolved be- nature of marriage. A man promi se d t o c h er i s h, pro cause the husband had eteed godfather to a cousin of his tect, and never to desert a woman . N o p rom i se cou ld wife. At the time of the Reformation the marriage was be more sacred; and if one of the pa r ties b ro k e th e con tract, it should not be thought any l onger a ppli ca bl e t o con not looked upon as it had been in the enure, of Rome, as the ether. What were the objects of ma rr ia ge ? Th e y a sacred sacrament, and several canons of differences ne were three. The first was the procreati o n o f childre n , tween the parties were laid down by the early reformers and bringing them up in the fear of God ; the s e c o nd as rendering divorce attain this. Although those canons had never becom e law, s till th e d octr i nes were shortly was stated to be to guard against sin ; the third w as th e ' after partially acted upon. Th e fi rs t case b e i ng th a t of comfort of the one by the other. All these sa c red obj e cts were defeated by the malichius abandonment of the a divorce a mensa et thor o obt a i ne d by th e Ma r qui s woman-. Would they say that, under finch circum of Northampton i n 1550. H av i ng o bt a i ne d thi s de s gree of divorce, a qu es ti on arose ae t o w h e th er the stances, she should be bound to an unf a ithf u l hu s b an d But it. was said that it was doubtful whether this was parties were in a p os iti on t o agree t o en t er i n t o th e marriage contract. The que s tio n was r ai se d b e fore the ,scriptural, or in accordance with eccl e sia s ti ca l authori courts of law, but before it was finally settled the mar- ties. This point had been discussed solemnly over and quis had taken upon himself to settle the case, and over again, at the time of the Reformation, and it w a s again Married, and an act of Parliament was afterwards decided that adultery afforded a fair ground fo r di vorce . , Nor was this only the opinion of the ecclesiastics ; passed legalisi ng th e marr i age . The noble and learned lord then referred to th e c a e e of Lo r d d e R o o s , Countess even the most learned jurist of the Continent—Grotiu s of Macclesfield. and other cases of divorce which had oc- —had .held the came opinion ; while, in Sc o tl an d, curred in the sixteenth centu r y. by means of acts of Par- Lord Stanhope had, in the most decid e d man 'lament. From the year 1715 to 1775, a period of 60 nor, pronounced in favour of the came take this view of the else he should feel it his duty hi mse lf t o the ground of the adult-dt,ry of the wife. During the last quarter of that centu r y th e n u m b e r o f c a s es i ncr e ase d to take up the matter. A man married a woman, lived about three in a year, and during the half of the present with her a short time, Spent her money, and then aban century the numbers were about two in each year, all doned her—she might receive more money, her husband might spend the and then abandon her again. This of which, with few exceptione, were founded on cases of had often happened. There was a case well known in adultery on the part of the wife. There was no doubt the aenals of law—a young girl of 15 years of age carried therefore, that there was something like a feeling of the propriety of givin reiress to the man whose wife had off, and partly by force and partly by persuasion coin g committed adultery. The question for their lordships pelted to a marriage. The man was t r i e d f or t h e abduc was whether this was a feeling which sheen receive Lion, sentenced to two years' imp r i sonmen t, b u t i n th e sanction at the hands of the Legislature ? 'rue present opinion of the judge the mar r ia ge cou ld not b e di sso l ve d . state of the law had been often complained of, and in Tee lady was made a ward i n Ch ancery , th e two years ' imprisonment expired, and th e man l e f t an d was never 1850 a commission was directed to Lord Campbell, Dr. Lnehlogton, Lord Broughton, Mr. Walpole, Vice Chan- heard of afterwards. Thi s was not an i so l ate d case. H o colter Wocd, Mr. Bouverie, and Lord Redesdale to in- would appeal to the noble lord' opposite as to the effects iiire into t after , of the law of S co tl an d. B y t h at I .iw desert i on dissolved e whole sub ct, a nd that c mmission, qhe i the most careful inquiry, recommended that whereas the marriage. Much had been said about the matter practice had grown up w hi c h en titl er i a man to api ivate in that country, and the lawyer s th ere h a d d ec id e d bill in the event of the adultery of his wife, it would be that desertion and adultery were scriptural causes for divorce. He was astonished at the differences better that the law should, by means'of a competent tri between the law in Scotland and in this country, banal, do that as a matter of right for those who had legi though under the same Government and the same Legis timete ground of complaint which they now obtained by latnre, and they brought in hills to as-imilate the laws special privilege. This wee what he proposed to adopt. of commerce of the two countries, but not th ose w hi c h The bill would p rov id e th a t th e cour t s h ou ld b e cointi affected the families of the whole e mpi r e. A man i n I toted of the Lord Chancellor, one of the Chief Justices, S c otl an d m i g ht b e di vorce d, m i g ht come b ac k w i th a and the proposed judge o f th e cour t—th e new C o urt of new wife, and his first wife in this ceuntry might sue A Probate. t: the close of the last century, in 1795, for a restitution of conjugal rights, an d thi s i n t h e same Lord Loughborough established certain standing orders with reference to divorce bile, and under one of these country. His strength prevented hi m say i ng th en w h at standing orders no divorce bill could be entertained nc- he meant to say on the criminal p ar t o f t h e bill ; he less there were laid upon the table the proceedin g s which must reserve that for anoth er o p portun i ty. H is no bl e f the injured party had taken in one of the Ecclesiastical felons said that an action f o r cr i m i na l conversat i on was Courts, and before a court of common law in an action not to be brought till after a di vorce ; t h ey were to h ave t for criminal conversation. Toe effect of this require he divorce first, the criminal conversat i on a f ter. S o that, however criminal the se d ucer m i g h t b e, no a ct i on meat was that all these disgusting seta is had to be in. could be brought against him till a divorce bad actually vestigated on three different occasions. Ther e were many grave objections to this cour s e, among others the e n or- taken place. There were mi nor matters b es id es upon which he would not then enter, b u t h e wou ld state this, mous expenses which it entailed, and which placed the remedy out of the reach of-all but the most wealthy par that if he had postponed the nd en ti on o f t h ese amend ties. Ile propo se d th a t b u t One i nqu i r y s h ou ld be go d s went they might have decided th e p r i nc i p l e o f th e bill into, and th a t th e p rocee di ngs s h ou ld b e v i va voce ev i- without them, but he felt these thi n g s t o b e o f so muc h dent©, and that b e f ore a j ury i ns t ea d o f b y th e com pli- importance that he had brought th em f orwar d i n or d er caredmode adopt e d i n th e ecc l es i as ti ca l cour t s . H e pro - that before the committee came on th e i r lo r d s hip s m i g ht posed that a n y h us b an d comp l a i n i ng that h i s w if e had have an opportunity of carefully considering th em . If they were moved in committee, he trusted to th e i r sense been unfaithf u l s h ou ld h e entitled at once to a decree which should give him the same ri g hts as Parliament now g a v e , th e hull s. id, of ce ' arse showing t he p resent law b y a careful c onsideration of the argu that he had not et the tame t i me b een guilty of a n offence ments which he had brought forward. of a similar kind to those of Which he complained. It Lord WENSLEYDALE would not oppose the Re lied been contended by many persons that this bill did cord reading of the bill, but heohad_his misgivings be not go far enough. Tnere were those who thought that fore, and be would Explain them then. The tribunal divorce should not be granted upon any ground except would be established in London, and be only avail a ble that of adultery, while others took a mime wider vi ew easily for persons resident in London. Again, a man of the latitude which ought to be given. He believed it who did nut like to live with his wife would take this would be as impossible as unwise to extend the licence eety course of dissolving the marriage. The answer to of divorce to anything short of adultery. (Hear, hear.) this had been, that i n S co tl an d th e same effects did not It bad been the course of the house ) to grant to the bus- take place, but he could reply that the character of the band with the divorce the power to marry again, but a two countries was essentially different. Still, as parts similar-privilege was not accorded to the wife. It was of the bill were very valuable he should n o t oppos e the possible for a wife to pardon a husband, but hardly poi- second reading. His noble friend's objection that an Bible for their lordship to conceive the case of a husband action for criminal conversation would only hold after pardoning his wife, and therefore the instances have been the dissolution of the marriage, was a very powerful one, exceedingly rare where divorces have been granted i n th e and he sincerely hoped that this provision would not b e case of the adultery of the husband, and they had been adopted. With this explaaation he should vote for the ik•en on the ground o f i n c es t uous i n t ercourse . H e pro - second reading of the bill. posed to give as grounds for div or c e on th e p ar t o f th e The Earl of MALMESBURY agreed w ith th e no bl e and learned lord who had just now s a t d own , th at t h ere wife, incest, bi gam y, arid cases where adultery had been coupled with such gross cruelty ordesertfon, as would with- was so much good in the bill that he shotild not oppose out the adultery entitle the wile to a divorce a enema the second reading. Stiil he objected to the facilities et thoro. He believed th a t thi s course wou ld b e one mos t given to those who were di v o rce d un d er.t h e bill to marry agreeatle to the feelings o f th e p eo pl e o f t hi s coun t ry , an d again. The adulterous parties under any circumst ances . it he entertained any doubts on the subject, those doubts unless some collusion was proved to the satisfaction of would be entirely removed by the discuetioa which bad the Court, were by the bill allowed to marry again. taken place some short time since in the Prussian Chem- Nothing could tend more t o i mmora li ty than such a hers on the subject of the divorce law. ' When the bill clause. Suppose that two persons had committed Which he now introduced had on a previous occasion adultery, that they were to marry, and that after mar passed' the house, a clau se wa s i n t r od uce d by th e Bishop ridge a second ailultrry took pla ce , was i t f or t h e i nterest of Oxford, which prohibited the ado force from ever mar- of morality to allow a furthe r marr i age ? I f a man had l r Y a idig again with the adultrese. He (the Lord Chancellor)Chancellor)seduced a woman and then d e b auc h e d h er m i nd, there were no grounds for him to dem an d a di vorce in case the carri e d his solitary vo i ce aga i ns t t h e c l ause, an d i t was ' ealmost by acclamation by th e i r l or d s h ips , an d h e woman again committed adultery. He wished for some t hought then, and still thought, that the clause was one ex p lanation of clause 19, which allowed three causes clause would be most mischievous ' in its tendency. A u nder which a woman could demand a divorce. The fir s t eeheee to this effect was always introduced in the was the plea of incestuous adultery. Now if a man corn private divorc e bills, but it was invariably struck out mated adultery with his wife's sister, would that permit either in the committee of the house or by the House the man to override the law of England and to marry of Commons- With respect to the propriety of his wife's s i s t er ? Was he to be in the position of a man y tahllaotwtihneg a b e e t s i t o c n e s u ef criin. con, still to continue, he thought that had not married, or of one whose wife had died ? adopt would be to leave theie ac- He suggested that a power should be given to the courts tions to their fate. Atorid inasmuch as these actions were to restrict marriages in such cases. now required to be brought „previous to obtaining the The Duke of NORFOLK was astonished to hear the divorce, he proposed that they shouhl only-be brought in noble and learned lord assert that councils and popes bad consequence of or after thated7 main had -been obtained, granted dissolutions of marriage. He did not believe that So far with regard to the wi d i ect of the bill with re- the noble lord could cite a single direct case of any such gard to a divorce a vinculo. regard a to a divorce a dissolution either by a pope or a general council. It was masa et thoro be proposed to add cause of testi. a universal opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that fixation, and that was desertion. It oft n that marriages were indissoluble. He would, therefore, ren d man deserted his wife without re asonable ' ifead eau se , and der every assistance in throwing out the bill. after a time he came back, and if the tue any pro- Lord. CAMPBELL said that the house would receive petty be took it. He proposed to give in ° power .of divorce a mensa et thoro, and the ll iina h e e o a f se a with respect the efforts of the noble duke to throw out de" , the bill, because by his f a ith an d th a t o f hi s ancestors a sertion he fixed at two years. He proposed that after marriage was a sacrament. B u t th e i r l or d s h i p s w ere in decree a mensa et thoro a married woman should been- the majo r ity a P ro t es t an t assem bl y ; i t was th e i r titled to any property she might acquire as though she opinion th a t by the words of the Divine fou n der of were an unmarried woman. This would, - by some per their , faith marriage was dissoluble in cases of , adul 6hrts, be thought a very imperfect remedy. There were I tors, tetw and it was only by quibbling that these words were those who advocated this subject ot divorce who wishedewxpleined away. His noble and learned friend o f go much further. If he should have succeeded in the cont ensleydale) bad said that the provision was present measure in improving the law as it at present contra'. to the lew of England, and that by that law atood, •he should think he had accomplished much, al- marriae y though he might still leave more to be done. The object tlety, ge was indissoluble. This Was a mere legal sub ety, spoken by a lawyer, of the bill . was to do away with the anomaly of private man sense and to legislation for the benefit of thew ealthy on l y . With law of Englandto fact. For 200 years marriage by the had been these few observation s Y. dissolved in cases of adultery. he asked their lordships to g i ve a' By the practice of the law any husband who could second reading to the bill. prove adultery on the part of the wife, could demand The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said hitherto tho a divorce. He bad been at the head of the commission attempt s to remedy existing evils had ledtoof the appointed to, in ui • q re into the state of the marriage la w, evils in the present system at this many . moment existing. He i and tbey were necked by the • Firstly bad therefore always felt great doubt ' upon the subject of i sent system. came the a • aun t for criminal con legislating • with regard to matrimony. Th h 1 then suit in • ey ad one great versation, a guide in 'the matter, and that - ' was the divine law. He petition to the House of Lords, and th en a l aw b ad to believed that when the ma rr i age t i e 'l OM was fixed no human be passed by both houses, Lately the H ouse o f C , IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. mons had accepted the evidence as given at their lord ships' house, but he knew several cases where the Corn• mons required evidence of their own, this being the fourth time when the same evidence was - required, to the great detriment of public morality. Ail the commission ers, with one exception, agreed that there ought to be a tribunal established to examine the evidence and pro nounce a decree. He believed that the apprehensions of his noble and learned friend would be found to be ground less. ' His noble friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had argued that wo should put the two sexes on an entire equality. This might be for the committee to consider. Bat that wisest of all codes, the civil code, only allowed a divorce on the part of the woman when the husband brought a woman into his own house. He would or ly allow a divorce where it was impossible for the two persons to live together, which was only in the case of the adultery of the wife. If the adultery of the husband was accom panied by aggravation, so as to prevent the continuance of the marriage, then the contract should be at an end. So far he would go with his noble and learned Mend, and no farther. As it was understood that the bill was to be read a second time, all further discussion was un necessary at present. Otherwise be should have first treated the arguments of his right reverend friend (the Bishop of Oxford), and endeavoured to answer them. But it was the understanding that no opposition should be offered to the second reading of the Bill. Before going into committee, he wished to know how the bill applied to Ireland ? The Marquis of WESTMEA.TH—I was going to mention that. Lord CAMPBELL—If an Irishman bad an unfaith ful wife he still would have to petition the House of Lords. There should be a civil tribunal established in Ireland or some means provided for giving the same fa cilities in that country as in this. With regard to the action for criminal conversation, he regretted that his noble and lesrned friend did not with one bl )w put an end to that system. He was ashamed of it. He had been taunted with it, when he had been obliged to cen• fess to foreigners that such was the law of the country- There were many who would be entirely deprived of the advantages of this bill. The noble duke had instanced the Roman Catholics. They could not obtain a dissolu tion of their marriage, and they could have no redress under the provisions of this bill. Viscount DUNGANNON would divide the house against the bill even if he stood alone. Was not the re medy worse than the disease t All discussion showed this. How fearful a source of evil would this bill be to Coe lower orders—in disrupting the only :tie that too many of them held sacred. The difficulty of divorce was a blessing to society. People settled down into harmony arid wedded comfort, who otherwise might' have flown off in a tangent to some of these tribunals to divorce them for a guinea. It might appear presumptuous in so young a peer, but he should make bold to move that the bill be read that day six months. Lord REDESDA.LE thought that the authority of Scripture was rather in favour of the indissolubility of marriage. The feeling of the country and the law were both against divorce. There were only two divorces on an average granted annually. Was it better to extend this principle or take it away altogether, and so make marriages even more holy and irrefragable E The expe riment now proposed was certainly a dangerous one. The Bishop of SA.LISBUBY advocated the total abo ition of the divorce a vinculo. Its extension to the poorer classes. itstead of a blessing would •be a curse. There was no authority in the New Testament for a separation such as would allow remarriage. It this bill was passed the clergy who could not recognise the dissolubility of marriage would have great difficulty to reconcile the law of God with the law of man, their loyalty to their Queen with their loyalty to th'e Supreme. The Bishops of Bangor, Llandaff, and Durham, took the same side. The Marquis of WESTMEATH hoped the bill would be extended to Ireland. The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill ; first be cau-e there was no scriptural warrant for remarriage ; and, secondly, because the bill was generally ill consi dered. Hue lordship complained that the term " quib bling" had been app . ;ied to the arguments of himself and his right rev. colleagues. He disagreed with Lord Lyndhurst's interpretation of St. Augustine in remar riages, which the Christian law did not sanction. Lcri LYNDIIURST explained. The Bishop of OXFORD did not deny the authority for divorce, but such divorce was only a mensh et thoro —not such as to qualify for remarriage. The l,w of mar riage as at present existing was disgraceful , but the pre sent law went to make it worse. This bill would be a deceit on the country. It pretended to give equal rights to the poor with the rich, but did nothing of the kind. Like all laws, now passing and lately passed, it made the procedure so expensive as to amount to a denial of jus tice. Toe rich could pay—the poor could not ; the rich would be divorced—the poor would remain in vice, dis cord, and adultery, as before. To get divorce, then, to the poor—nay, to tha middle classes—they must bring it down to the county courts. A divorce for half-a crown I Were their lordships prepared to come to that ? The machinery of the present bill might be expensive, but its principle was declaratory, and such being the case, the practice, sooner or later, must be adapted, to the more efficacious carrying out of this principle. The bill wou!d lead to perpetual conflict of jurisdiction be tween the civil and ece'esiastical courts. The lliihop of LONDON gave his hearty approval to the principle of the bill. (Hear.) The right rev, prelate argued at some length, that there was no precept of Christianity which could be used as an argument in fa vour of the perfect indisQolubility of marriage under every circumstance, and he contended that there might be acts of such a character as would be sufficient to render mar riage dissoluble. He denied, too, that the law of the Church or of the State recognised the perfect indissolubi lity of marriage. The private bills• which were passed every year dissolving marriages, and the Church which remarried the parties after their separation, proved that such was not the principle of either State or Church. If these divorces were to be granted, it would be much bet ter that they should be pronounced by such a court as that proposed to be instituted rather than by the present exceptional and partial system. He thought it was not right that we sbou!d any longer keep up the rid system, but should lose no time in setting the matter on a broad and int, bigible (Cheers.) The Duke of A rtGyLL contended that the passage in St. Matthew fully recognised the right of a man to f.ut away his wife, not merely as a monsa et thorn, but a vinculi, and said that his right rev. friend the Bishop of Oxford must give up the theolog:cal part of his argu men% With re.pect to the objection of the right rev, pre late that the bill would create a remedy only for the rich and not for the poor, there was no reason whatever to suppose that an equal amouni; of relief would be afforded by the bill to the classes of England, as was the cue in Scotland. The Bishop of LINCOLN said the only point of diffe rence between the members of the episcopal bench was, whether the woman after being divorced should be in a position to contract a second marriage. Conceiving that the permission to contract a second marriage by the di vorced woman would lead to great social and moral evils, he should feel it his duty to opp.)se the second reading. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question that the word "now" stand part of the bill. The house divided, when there appeared— • Content 47 Non content lB Majority for the second reading —29 The house then adjourned at ten minntes past ten. It is worthy of notice that, fur the first time in the an nals of the House of Lords, strangers were not ordered to withdraw during the division. The old system was the cause of great inconven'.enca without the slightest advantage to balance it, and the reporters more espe cially have to thank those, whoever they are, through whom this ray of troublesome etiquette has been thrown away. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTpDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before 4 o'clock. NEW ME VIBEP,S. The following members took the oaths and their seats: —Lord C. Hamilton, Sir H. F. Davie, Mr. W. Jack. son, Mr. Crook, Col. Clifford, Sir J. Owen, and Mr. Blake. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Willenhale (Wolverhampton) Gas Bill was con sidered, and ordered to be read a third time. BIRKENHEAD AND LIVERPOOL DOCKS, Colonel W. PATTEN moved that the minutes of evidence taken before the committees on the Birken head Docks Bill (1854), the Birkenhead Dock Com pany's Bill (1854), the Liverpool Docks Bill (1855,) the Birkenhead-D.)ck Trustees Bill (1855), the Birken head and Liverpool Docks (Trust Property of the Bir kenhead Dock Trustees) Bill (1855), the Birkenhead Docks Bill (1856), and the Admiralty and Board of Trade Reports on the bills, be referred to the committee on group A of private bills.—Agreed to. RETURNS. Several unopposed returns were ordered to be laid on the table of the house. THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK. Mr. WYLD presented the following petition from the assignees, committee of depositors, and depositors of the Royal British Bank :-- "That the laws now in force relating to the bankruptcy and winding-up of joint-stock companies are defective, most injurious to the interests of creditors, and opposed to the ordinary principles of bankruptcy in not providing for the realisation and equal distribution of the separate es tates of shareholders, at the instance of assignees, or the representatives of creditors. " That such laws are also destructive of the interests of shareholders in leaving them exposed (however desirous of contributing fairly towards the debts of the company), to the consequence and heavy expense of actions by indivi dual creditors, " That it irrexpedient to confer power on the Courts of Bankruptcy and Chancery to grant protection to the per sons and property of shareholders, with the consent of the assignees or representatives of creditors (to be chosen for that purpose where there is no bankruptcy), upon such terms as the Court may think fit. "That provision should be made to constitute the ceasing to carry on business by any Joint Stook Company an act of bankruptcy, in order that adjudication in bankruptcy might be obtained forthwith, either with the concurrence m pally, and that fu r th er p rov i s i ons yw r t t o hitth of the company, legisl a ti on s h ou ld b e ma d e to n ßankruptcy t o ma k e t h e requ i s i te c eion a f l a l ao s brc , lce ao a d n rt d hydeearuCsceoelu finally wind up and settle the affairs of a bank- rupt company. " That power should also be conferred upon the courts of Bankruptcy and Chancery, with the consent of the as signees or representatives of creditors, and also with the consent of a certain proportion of the creditors, to sanction a compromise between any or all of the shareholders and the creditors, which power would be in accordance with principles already recognised by the bankrupt laws." ,SAVINGS BANK BILL. Mr. COLLINS asked the Chancellor of the Exche quer, what time he intended to fix for the second read ing of the Savings Bank Bill, issued on Saturday, and when he would be prepared to submit to the house the. regulations for the future pvernment of 6eqe hanti 8 ? The CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUER said that the second rending, of this bill stood for to-morrow. He intended to ask the house to allow the bill to be read without opposition, and then to commit it pro forma to make certain alterations that had been suggested to him. He thought it would be better to take the discussion .on the bill on its details in committee. He proposed to go into committee on the bill either on Friday or Monday next. He proposed to make certain alterations in the regulation clauses, bat he did not intend to set out the regulations in full in the act. MILITIA REGIMENTS. Capt. D. O'CONNELL asked the Under Secretary for War, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to make any change in the relative rank of the regimental captains and adj utants of militia regiment'', so as to affect the seniority of the former over the !at ler ; and, if so, whether he would lay on the table any correspondence or memorials, 'and answers thereto, which explain Oa reasons for such a change ? Sir J. RAMSDEN said that the alteration the hon. gentleman alluded to had been under 'the careful consi deration of the Government, and was so at this tic.e, but that no conclusion had yet been cline to. Major SIBTHORP asked the Under Secretary for War, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Go vernment to call out any of the militia regiments for training this year ; and if so, what regiments and' at what period ? Sir J. RAIISDEN said it was impossible to answer the question until after the estimates had been voted, for on that depended the number of men to be called out for training. The Goverdment did not intend to call the militia ont until after the harvest. SUPERANNUATION PENSIONS. Mr. GROGAN asked the Under Secretary for War when the superannuation pensions would be granted to the surveyors and draftsmen lately dismissed from the Ordnance Survey Branch of the War Department, Dublin, to which they were entitled under the Treasury minute of 1855 Sir J. RA.MSDEN said that the granting of the pen eion, and the time when they were granted, rested with the Traasury. QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY. Mr. HADFIELD moved for copies of all communi cations or letters tbat had been addressed* to and re ceived from the Archdeacon of Salop, in the diocese of Lichfield, by the Secretary to the Governors of Qaeen Ann's B3unty, from the Ist day of .February, 1353, to the present time, in reference to proposed improve ments in the manavment of the Bounty-office, and with a view to the interests of the poorer clergy ; and of all the minutes and records of the proceedings and resolutions that had been taken and passed thereon by the governors, and of the correspondence that had taken place in relation to such communication or let ters, or in consequence thereof.—Agreed to. CHELSEA BRIDGE Sir J. SHELLEY asked the President of the Board of Works when Chelsea Bridge was likely to be opened for public traffic, whether it had been decided on that it should be a toll•paying bridge, and, if so, after paying the usual expenses of keeping up the bridge,what would be done with any surplus that remained ? Sir B. HALL said he hoped this bridge would be opened to the public in August next. It would be a tax paying bridge by act of Parliament, which declared that the proceeds should be devoted, first, in support and maintenance of the bridge, and to pay off the cost of construction ; and if that should be done the surplus to be handed over to the fends for metropolitan 'improve. meats. ELECTION PETITIONS. Petitions were presented against the election returns of Dublin (City), Lisburn, and Bury St. Edmunds. SHEEP, &c., CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION. Mr. BENTINCK moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend an Act passed in the Session 11 and 12 Vic., c. 107 ; also to amend an Act passed in the Session 16 and 17 Vic., c. 62 ; also to amend an Act passed in the Session 19 and 20 Vic., c. 101, intituled, "An Act to continue certain Acts to prevent the spreading of con tagious or infections disorders amongst Sheep, Cattle, and other Animals." Leave was given accordingly, without opposition. AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL. Mr. DILLWYN moved the second reading of this Sir G. GREY opposed the bill on various grounds, amongst others that giving summary jurisdiction to one magistrate, and in some instances to two magistrates, to inflict a flogging on adults, was contrary to the principle of the present law, which provided that that description of punishment could only be inflicted by a jury. He moved tbat the bill be read a second time this day six months. The house then divided, when the numbers ware— For the second reading B6 Against it Majority against the bill —135 GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) ACT (1836) AMENDMENT On the motion of Mr. MAGAN, the home went into committee on this bill, when Chairman immediately re ported progress, anti obtained leave. to sit again on Thursday, the 4th June, to enalde hon. members tocoE sider the probable effect of the bill. MINISTERS MONEY (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. FAGAN moved the second reading of this bill, and, in doing so, he repeated the arguments used by him when he brought forward this measure io the last session of parliament, when the Government promised him their support. He entered into a bietory of the ques tion, remarking that it was first imposed in Dublin in 1675, in the reign of Charles 11., after which it was imposed on other corporate towns. The tax was origi ginally imposed on Protestants for the maintenance of protestant ministers, and he contended that it ought not to be continued now that-the inhabitants were Roman lets. In 1689, 28 years after its imposition, the Irish Parliament under James 11. repealed it, and it was not heard of again in Ireland till 150 years after, in the reign of William 111. The hon. gentleman then referred to the proceedings in this house in 1842 with regard to this question, recapitulating the circumstances connected with it from that time to the present, quoting Lord Derby's opinions with reference to the Church odes in Ireland, which, he said, was an argument in favour of the pre sent bill. He was sure that when the measure went up to the other house it would be. found that Lord Derby would not be found to have changed his sentiments. He, and those acting.with bum, had not proposed as a substi tute for ministers' money, to tax any churchman, or to reduce any bishopric. They had merely proposed that as by a recent act of the Government, the ecclesiastical com missioners were in possession of ample funds to pay 12,5001., they should not come down to seven towns and create and intensify religious differences by the col lection of that tax. Large as were the increasing funds of the ecclesiastical commissioners, they might be still further increased by judicious management of one of the sources of revenue—that of converting the bishop's leases into perpetuities. For that purpose he would sug gest that there should be a larger bonus given to the purchaser and to the new tenant, to enable them to go On, and where those purchasers left the purchase money on mortgage in purchasing the land, that they should only be called upon to pay 3 per cent. interest instead of 5. If that suggestion were adopted, the result would be an almost unlimited income to the ecclesiastical commis. sioners. In 1848 their income bad reached 70,0001., it was now over 100,0001., and would be still increased. How was that money expended ? 35,0001. was spent for church purposes, of which some 22,0001. went to sextons and clerke—out of that 22,0001. at least 8,000/. might be saved by uniting the (aces of parish clerk and sexton in the same person. The next item of expen diture was that for Dubin curates, and here he would say that he believed it was entirely by inadvertence that the ministers' money had not been included in ethe Church Temporalities Act of Lord Stanley. The next item of expense was 6,0001. a year for commis sioners, and though he would not be a party to injuring any one, he bad been informed by many persons well acquainted with the subject, that one commissioner would be ample to discharge the-duties. The next item he would allude to was the expense of the repairs of churches, amounting last year to 2,5001.1 arger, with the exception of three years, than it was ever before. In the previous year the amount expended was 8,0001., and he cool I not understand why there should have been any increase. He bad been told that the expenditure was wasteful and useless, and that the money was expended upon churches where no divine service was performed. He submitted the qeestion with great confidence to the house, although he feared from the party move which had been announced in opposition to the measure, that it would not receive the fair consideration it deserved. The grievance which existed was one which pressed very heavily upon the people of Ireland, and he hoped the new Parliament would have the honour of securing its abolition. (Hear.) H e was well pleased that the noble lord at the head of the Government had taken the mat ter in fiend, and be assured the noble lord that the course he had adopted would give the greatest satisfaction in Ireland. At present a small abuse was kept up for the purpose of prolonging a greater abuse. He bad been taunted with the charge that he as a Roman Catholic had violated the oath which he took upon taking his seat in that house, but he did not believe that he was in any way infringing that oath, or injuring the Protestant Church of Ireland, by attempting to getrid of this odious tax. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the bill. Mr. BEAMISII seconded the motion. Mr. NAPIER moved as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He objected to the principle of the hill, which was a violation of the rights of property, and a violation of the final settlement made by the Church Temporalities Act. The principle of the measure had been oppaled by every Government dur ing the last ten years, and he believed that Lord Pal merston would not lend it his support if he bad ever given his attention to the consequences of its adoption. Sir G. GREY said the Government had decided upon giving its support to this bill, denying that it was any violation of principle, and asserting that Mr. Napier was treading on dangerous ground in arguing that the Este. bliehed Church of Ireland stood upon no better founda tion than did this charge of ministers' money. He felt so strongly when a member of Lord J. Russell's Govern. ment the serious objections to this impost that he had met it, not with a direct negative, but with the previous question. There was at that time no balance in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but, as that objection no longer Existed the Government felt the time bad arrived to put an end to the collection of ministers' money. Mr. WHITESIDE said the sum at issue was a small one, but the principle at issue was a very large one; and believing the • bill to be founded on injustice, he would give it his deCided opposition.. The hon. and learned gentleman Keith great force .sought to fasten on the GO. vent - tient the - charge-of -being influenced in the course , they were pursuing on this question by political consi derations. Mr. IiORSMAN replied to the arguments of Mr. Whiteside, denying that ministers' money could be con gidered in the same light as church rate,i, which al says pertained to the Church, whereas ministers' money was iturrised by a comparatively ncent act of Parliament, and an act of Parliament might be repealed without in justice. •Mr. BLAKE strongly supported the bill. Sir F. THESIGERcontin - ded that ministers' money was an obligatiorion property, and that its abrogation would therefore a a spoliation of church property, unless care were taken to provide a substitute. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND sup ported the bill, contending that it was hopeless to ex pect to recover the money from the Irish corporations, many of which had no property whatever. The Roman Catholics and Dissenters built their own churches, and paid their own ministers, and surely it was not unrea sonable to suppOse' that the members of the Established Chnrch would contribute to raise a fund for the purpose of adding to the salaries of their minister& When a tax like this created animosity in every part of the country, it was, in his opinion, a wise policy on the part of the Government to seek its settlement at the earliest pos sible period. Lor J. RUSSELL said that he could not refrain from stating shortly the grounds upon which he should give his vote in support of the measure. He was not' satisfied that the necessity of this bill arose from the imperfec tions of the act of 1854. That act, as ho understood it, consisted of four parts. One was that it reduced the amount of minister' money by 20 per cent. Another part provided a remedy for that uncertainty that pre vailed with reference to the payment of the stipends by the ecelesiastical commissioners. Thirdly, that the occu piers of houses under 101. a year should be exempt from the tali; and fourthly, that the corporations should levy the tax. The latter appeared to him to be the only part that could be said to have failed ; but the Government had the matter under their consideration, and he pre sumed that they had come to the resolution of support ing this bill from a belief of the impossibility of the tax being successfully collected. He therefore presumed that the difficulties spoken of arose rather from a difficulty of the matter, than from an imperfection in Sir J. Young'sact. He (the noble lord) considered the Govern ment were justified in the course they proposed by the act of 1833, introduced by Lord Dal by, which took away from the Irish Church the cbnrcb cess, amount ing to about 70,0001. a year, on the ground of its being vexatious in its collection, and felt to be oppressive by the people. The same objection applied to this 12,000/. ministers' money, and he could not see that if the bill passed there would be such a spoliation of church property as had been stated by hon. and learned mem bers. There only remained one question, as it appeared to him to argue, viz. :—whether or not it was possible for the ecclesiastical commissioners to furnish from their funds a substitute for this 12,0001. Looking at the greet increase in their revenue from 1848, he thought there was nothing to apprehend on that head. After express. ing his regret that the hon. member for Cork bad not given up the bill to the Government, the noble lord concluded by stating that he should support the second reading of the bill. (Cheers, and cries of divide ) Mr. WALPOLE called on Lord J. Russell to consi der the conclusion he had arrived at with reference to this bill, which was directly opposite to that he bad an nounced with reference to the church rate question for England, viz, that if we took away property belonging to the church that we were striking at the foundation of all property and endangering the permanent institutions of the country. (Hear.) The question of ministers' money was not to ba compared in amount with church rates in England, nor the church cess in Ireland ; but the prin ciple if acted on, would lead to difficulties which the noble lord would be one of the first to deprecate. The first objection to that grant was that it was limited to incomes of 601. a year, and the second objection was that certain tenements were kept up at the same assess ment though depreciated in value. For' this reason Lord Deriiy's Government consented to repeal the im post. Sir J. Young's bill received the sanction of all parties. Every man of note on the other side of the house was a party to the bill which they now endeavoured to throw over. The third objection was that if you continued this impost religious animosity would be kept up in Ireland. But the noble viscount had replied to this, that the question could not be argued on the ground—that it was a tax— not on religion, but on property. There was another point he was anxious to press. The impost was estab fished by Act of Parliament—it had existed for 200 years—it was not repealed in 1854, and was honfirmed by two Acts of Parliament. Now be would ask the Government what had Maynooth in its favour. (Hear, hear) ? The agitation for Maynooth was unfortunate— he was opposed to many of his friends on that subject. He regretted it. But if they passed the bill they would furnish arguments for the repeal of the grant which it would be difficult to answer. Beth were founded on Acts of Parliament—both were obnoxious to the feelings of certain portions of the country. They must either say that these things must be religiously observed as secured by Acts of Parliament or to provide some equivalent for them. (Hear, hear.) This led him to the observation of the Attorney-General for Ireland and the noble lords who argued that 12,0001. was easily to be raised from the ecclesiastical commissioners. The answer to this was that this was taking funds intended for one purpose to apply them to another. Another answer was this—that till they were satisfied that adequate provision was made for the poor clergy of Ireland, many of whose incomes had been shown to be under 1001. a year, they had not obtained the surplus that was claimed for the fund. If they were just and did not break through the rights of property, they would have a better chance of securing the religious peace of the two kingdoms. Lord PALMERSTON hoped that the house would agree to the second reading of the bill. He hoped the house would consider the question on its own merits, and not be led by honourable gentlemen opposite to combine it with other measures, or to make their decision depend on hypothetical grounds. The learned gentleman opposite had introduced much logical deductions to prove that the towns in Ireland ought to continue to pay these sums. He trusted that the logic of the hon. member for Enniskillen would con vince his cleats that they ought upon every principle to pay the money. (Laughter.) But the question was not to be determined by such reasoning. The question was one of State policy, and was to be determined on other grounds. All had admitted that the tax involved considerable objections. Successive Governments had endeavoured to remove them. The Government of Lord A berdeen, too, thought by the bill of 1854 to obviate these objections. Those who said that the present bill was depriving the Church of its property, should re member that at first the clergy had the task of collect ing the tax themselves. They din not , succeed in col lecting it. In order that it might be collected 25 per cent. was taken from the gross amount. The bill of 1854 had introduced great improvement—it increased for the.clergy the amount of their reduced stipends, by placing them on the fund of the ecclesiastical commis sioners, and it was thought that by transferring the col lection from the commissioners to the corporations the commissioners would be reimbursed for their advances. Experience had shown that in this respect the bill did not succeed. It was a subject of conviction nod of great expense. At the commencement of the present year the Government had considered what course it should take, and on full consideration it came to the conclusion that a substitute for - the money would be provided by the funds of the ecclesiastical. commission. It ap peared that the commission had sufficient to pro vide for the sum of 12,0001. asyear. They hoped that all, for the sake of peace, would consent to put an end to the heartburnings which existed, and that a satis factory result would ensue from the expedient of placing the funds in other hands. They had decided to take the course in the early part of the year, and 'lie hoped that the house would sanction it by agreeing to the bill now before them. The Government had been taunted with taking the bill up with regard to elections. Now ho did not wish to say anything uncivil, but when they were taunted by bon. members in this manner, he must tell him that they did not stand in need of that slender sup port as such a stratagem would have provided. It, was not to that quarter of the house that 'they looked for Ruppert. They looked to those opposite —to those who looked them face to face. (A laugh.) The Government had come to the conclusion that the grant should be withdrawn for the purpose of putting an end to a con test concerning matters trifling in amount, and important to the peace of the country. He was convinced that the house would coincide in adopting their conclusion. So far from the Church of Ireland being injured, it would find advantage and strength from the good will which would be produced ; and it would find that the funds of the ecclesiastical commission were amply sufficient to con tinue the payment'to the clergy. It had been said that the Government ought to have taken the bill up. Now, the hon. member for Cork was identified with the mea sure. He had been its persevering advocate, and it was due to him to offer him the choice as to who should con duct the bill. He had chosen to have the bill left to himself, but it would be supported by all the force of the Government, and the Government was ,willing to take as much responsibility as if the bill was moved by a member of the Government. (Cheers.) The house divided, when there appeared-- For the motion Against. it Majority --139 REPORT OF SUPPLY. The report Of the committee of supply. was then brought up and agreed to ; and it was further agreed that to-morrow the house resolve itself into a committee of supply. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND). . _ . The report on this bill was brought up and agreed to. Two petitions against the return for Berwick-upon- Tweed, and one against the- return for Newport were received, and ordered to be referred to the general com mittee on elections. The house then adjourned at ten minutes to one; SUEZ CANAL.—The Chamber of Commerce, Dublin, have resolved, that ,they are deeply sensible of the im portant advantages to the interests of commerce and civilisation which that project presents ; and they con sider that, provided means can be adopted to secure the perfect neutrality of the canal, and to ensure a moderate rate of charges on vessels passing through, and a perfect impartiality in its management, it will be eminently entitled to commercial support. . . NEW REMEDY FOR EPILEFST.-Sir Charles Locock made known a very important fact with regard to the treatment of some forts of Epilepsy, at the meeting of the Medical and Chirurgical Society last Tuesday. In cases of hysterical epilepsy in young women, he has found the bromide of potassium, in doses of from five to ten grains, remarkably efficacious. Of 15 cases in which he had tried it, it had failed in only one.-• iffeaico? Timm POLIOE INT E LLIGEN CE—May 19. CLERKENVi 7 ELL.—James Cahill ; 39, a re - -pPcf ably clress,d man, late a inesseng at the Admiralty office, Sotnerset House, and Mary Josephine Cahill, his wife, were charged on remand, before Mr. Corrie, by lospectof .Duif,san aod police-owistable Hasset, of the E division, with obtaining by false and fraudulent pretences the sum of 2501. froth Alexander Duncan, of No. 6, Charl wood•street, Tachbrook•street, Pimlico, gentleman, under the plea of obtaining him a situation in the Admirahy. The facts of this remarkable case were related very ful'y in our columns this day week., Yesterday, a zentlenian from the office of the solicitor for the Acltnirahy attend ed for the prosecution ; Mr. J. Leech, jun., from the office of Johnstone, Farquhar, and Leech, to watch the case on behalf of Mr. Duncan ; and a solicitor, for the defence. • Mr. Alexander Duncan wa% then sworn and said—ln the month of January last I placed an advertisement in the Morning Post newspaper, offering a douceur of from 2001. to 3001., if a respectable and good situation could be obtained legitimately for me. Oa the 21 of that month I received the following letter, written in a female's handwriting, and bearing the Camden-town post mark:— "Jan. 2. " Sir,—Permit me to say, in reply to your adye; :Ise ment, that by Monday next I trust to be able to ensure an appointment in. London, which may perhaps suit your views.—L. G." Alter that I received another letter, desiring me to com municate by letter to the above initials, and to address to a hairdresser's shop in Park-street,, Regent's-park. Accordingly I wrote, and asked to he favoured with the particulars, and the•resnit was the following letter:— "Monday afternoon. " Sir,— The appointment which I referred to i❑ my last is one of the highest branches of the Civil Service in Lon don, salary 300/. per year, with a yearly increase of 151., and the salaries there vary from 600/. to 7007. per year. A gentleman whom I had appointed holds the position at present, but is obliged to resign in consequence of ill health, and I am promised the vacancy for another friend of mine. A donceur of 500/. will be required should you consider this suitable. Send your age, scc., and address to "L. Q. " 103, Park•street, Gloucester-Gate." I answered that letter, and asked for an'interview, but I heard nothing more of the matter until I received this letter : " Monday Evening, Jan. 21. " Sir,—As a lady I cannot grant you an interview, nor would I, on any account, employ . a ' third person in this affair. I however propose a course which perhaps you will (as I do) consider equally as secure to both parties. I will give in your name for the Situation referred to, and, if successful, I would require you to have left at Park-street, before one o'clock on the day after you receive your official appointment from government, half the douceur in a letter, addressed as usual, in respect of which I would see you at my own residence when we should arrange as to the payment of the remaining half. There is, lam informed, generally from ten to fifteen days between the date of the appointment and the day named to join • if, therefore, you do not keep punctuall r th e fi rs t p ar t o f tho arrangement I would use all my influence to prevent you taking office. By this course no injury would accrue to others. Should you agree to carry out the arrangement let me have your name and address in full as soon as pos sible, for the man in power is at present in town. My friend resigns immediately, so there is no time to be lost. I shall send for your answer on Thursday afternoon, which I beg will be decisive. " Yours, &c., " L. G." I wrQte in reply, accepting the terms proposed ; and on the 29th received what appeared to me a very satis factory reply : " Wednesday. " Sir,—Since my last note to you, I find that I shall be able to have you appointed next week, and I will thank you for a few lines by return of post, saying if you will be in town. "Yours, &c., "L. G. Oa the 31st of the same month the following note was sent:— "Sir,— I regret having 'mentioned last week, as it must be again put off for some time longer. I cannot ascertain, sooner than Monday or Tuesday next the precise time it may take, but will let you know the momen t I d o . Yours, 11 -- -G-." Soine other communications passed between us, and then I received this Jotter by post : " Sir,—l only received yourletter of the 14th last night. I regret to have to tell you that! think it batter to allow matters to remain as they are for another month or six weeks; and. for this reason : there are• many clerks who were engaged temporarily during the war, but now being dismissed, and I feel that if my triend resigned just now one of these might get his appointment, and you would have much longer to wait. My servant on his return from Park-street last evening informed me that you had been there and pressed very much for my address, which was not quite right for you to do. It is not necessary that you should remain in London ; wherever your address is given Government will forward your appointment to ; but, if in the country, you must let me see how you,would propose making the first payment.—Yours, &c., L. G." Nothing much was done after this for some time (ex cept my receiving a letter from the Barre party caution— ing me to be careful, and informing me that if it was discovered proceedings might be taken against both of , us) until March 20, when the folio wing note reached me : " Sir,—l should wish you to get to London by the 2d or 3d next month, when from the promises 'made to mei have no doubt I shall hate this affair decided successfully. Your address in London had bitter be from private lodg ings, or some friend'irresidence, than an hotel.—Yours. &c. " L. G." A few days after that, I received a letter written on official paper, and sealed with the Admiralty seal, appoint ing me to a second clerkship in the storekefleers' depart ment of the Admiralty• The appointment purported to he signed by the Secretary of the Admiralty, Mr• Thomas Phinn. That letter came that night, and the next I enclosed 2501. in bank notes, and left them at Park-street, as directed. On the following day I re ceived a letter in the same handwriting, and signed "Louise de Garand," requesting to see me at No. 9, Gloucester-terrace, Regent's-park. Upon proceeding there I found that I had been duped, and that the house was occupied by the Earl of llopetoun. On the follow ing day I received the following note written in a mai,'s hand, and which bore the Southampton postmark : (Here fellows the note signed " Thomas Pilitth," pub lished last week). Seine other evidence having been given, the prisoners were again remanded. Bail was asked to be taken, but Mr. Corrie declined to accept it. The solicitor for the prisoners said 3401. was taken from them, and asked that some of it might be given up, but Mr. Corrie declined to make the order. The female prisoner was suffering from bad health. THAMES.—EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ARSON.— seph Phiaman and Rachel Phiaman, his wife, were charged with setting fire to their dwtliing-house, with intent to defraud the Sun Insurance-office. The prisoners were German Jews, occupying the shop, b ac k p ar l our , and front kitchen, at No. 57, Cable-street, Wellelose squ Iro, where Phiaman carried on business as a barber. John King, a tinplate-worker, living at Ratcliff-high way, said that last Friday Pbiaman showed him a receipt for a premium paid to the Sun-office, insuring 1001., and that he meant to set fire to his premises on Sunday even ing. Witness informed the police, and on Sunday called on the prisoner, went down to the kitchen, and saw a qnantity of wood and coals laid on the fire-grate, from which linos communicated 'with all parts of the room, and on these lines were smipended linen and clothes. Tee lines communicated also with some rags on the dresser. The male prisoner' asked what he thought of it, and he said, "You know your business best ; but Satan himself could not do it better.' The prisoners shut up their shop and went out soon after eight o'clock. They returned between nine and ten, and witne-s, on going to the house, found that the kitchen fire had been lighted. Phiaman tell him the coals would not burn, and that he m ean t t o p u t o ff se t t i ng fi re t o th e pl ace till the following afternoon. Witness ca.led again next day, saw the woman brandishing lighted rags about in the kitchen, and while he was upstairs with her husband a dense smoke ascended from below, and the kitchen was on fire. The firemen, who were on the alert, were quickly at the house, and the fire was extinguished. This strange story-was mainly confirmed by other wit nesses, and a police-constable who bad watched the pre cniges stated that the kitchen dresser was burnt, and the gas pipes burnt down, and that the prisoner's furniture did not deem worth more than eight or nine pounds. This witness also said that the doors had been closed before the place was set on fire, that a suffocating smoke rushed •up the stairs, and that he met a man who lodged in the upper part of the house running out of the passage carry-. ing his children. He considered that if the fire had taken place in the night everybody in the house would have perished in five Minutes. Pi limier told him that his wife had the policy of insurance. • Mr. Selfe sail notice must be served on the prisoners to produce it, and remanded them till Saturdal. BOW-STREET.—TICKET OFFICES.—An application for advice was made to Mr. Jardine, by a gentleman whose name was not mentioned, as to the mode of en against a p erson k eep i ng w h a t i s forcing a warranty called,an "Opera-ticket office," adjoining the Royal Italian Opera, Lyceum. The applicant had purchased the box at the "office" in question, under the belief that the place bad been opened in connection with the theatre,—that it was, in short, an authorised box-office. He asked on what evening the "Trovatore" would be performed, and on the office keeper's positive assurance that it would be played on Tuesday (last evening) gave three guineas for a box for that night. He had since ascertained that the opera for that night was "La Traviata ; " that the office was entirely unconnected with the the atre, and that he bad been charged 50 per cent, more than the fair price. He did not complain of being cheated in the Trice, but he thought the representa tion that the " Trovatore " was to be played was a pretence for which he ought to have a remedy. H e had demanded the return Gf the money, which had . been refused. Mr. Jardine did not think he had any power to compel the man to return the money. The applicant had only a civil remedy. The man was certainly bound to return the money, and probably if be (the worthy magistrate) sent a policeman to tell him 80, he might give back the money without compelling the applicant to take legal proceedings. A. constable accordingly went with the applicant to the ticket-office, and the proprietor, on hearing the magistrate's opinion, returned •the price of the be x. LETTERS FOR LISBON, PERNAMBUCO, BAHIA AND RIO DE JANEIRO. —Yesterday a written notice was posted in the Great-hall of the General Post-office, in St. Martin's le Grand, by order of the Postmaster-General, which was as follows :—" Ship. letter bags.—M a il s will b e made up for Lisbon, Pernambuco, Bahia, and Rio de Janeiro, for transmission by the steamer Petropolis, to leave Southampton on the 24th instant (Sunday next). —General Post-ofEce, May 19, 1857.7 THk BANKRUPTCY OF MR. W. PITCHER. A meting of the creditors of Mr. Win. Pitcher, of Northfleer, shipowner, &c., who has lately sus pended, was held yester !ay, Mr. White presiding, when the subjoined statement was presented by Mr. J. E. Coleman, the accountant :L--- STATEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF WM. PITCHER, OF NORTH• FLEET, KENT, SHI POWNER, & C., MAY 9,1857 : DR. To creditors unsecured‘ £30,803 9 Credit rs partially secured.. £93,185 6 9 Estimated value of security held Creditors fully secured Estimated value of secu rity held Amount of claims 6,000 0 0 Sae contra £4,950 0 0 Liabilities on bills received 1,824 7 1 Expected to be duly honoured at maturity. £94,97816 3 CR. By cash balances £Bl 6 5 West of Ireland Fishing and Fish Manure Company's shares, estimated at l'o 0 0 Loose tools, stores, drc., estimated at .20,200 0 0 Debtors good Estimated amount to be received on com- pletion of vessel now building for the Russian Government, say 1,40 0 0 Surplus security with creditors contra 4,950 0 0 £27,496 7 2 Amounts tinder £lO, and to be paid in full £l3B 17 11 Safaries, taxes, rates, and other charges 939 15 9 1,078 13 8 Household furniture, &c., stands at c05t....... ....... 1,623 3 2 1:26,417 13 6 It was explained that the assets will realise about ss. in the pound if the stock be sold by auction, and another valuation (could arrangements be made to. secure an incoming purchaser) shows about 10s. In 1852 the estate exhibited a surplus of 13,0001., but losses have since occurred, and these, with the interest on borrowed capital, private expenditure, and the difference in cost and estimated value of premises, have caused the deficiency; One creditor complained of the manner in which his debt had been contracted shortly before the suspension. A suggestion was made to wind up by inspectorship, but several creditors thought that an offer of com position would be accepted. Mr. Coleman stated that if the creditors will agree to take 6s. Bd. in the pound he will endeavour to make arrangements for the payment of that amount within two months.. The majority supporting this proposition, a com mittee was appointed to carry it out, and a memo randum was drawn up, and signed by many of the parties present. Country markets. LIVERPOOL-MAY 19. The corn exchange this morning was well attended by millers and dealers, and the tran.actions were numerous, chiefly in Indian corn, which was in request to satisfy a continued demand for Ireland, at an advance of 9d to is per qr. Prices were nominally the same as on Tuesday for wheat, flour, oats, and oatmeal. Barley dull, and lower. Beans scarce and rather dearer; peas a dragging sale and easier in price. This afternoon's weather is all that could be desired for for the progress of vegetation. LEEDS, MAY 19. We have a good supply of wheat to-day. On the whole the trade shows more tone than on Fri ay, and a very fair business is done at fully that, day's rates. Barley as be fore. Bo Ans continuo in request at steady quotations. Oats and other articles without alteration. Average prices of grain—Wheat, 57s 91d ; barley, 46s Od ; oats, 283 544 ; beans, 46s 3 d ; peas, 43s ON ; rye, —s. Od. NE WCASTLE-MAY 19 A scanty supply of wheat from farmers, and Saturlafo full prices obtained. South country wheat slow sale, but no disposition on the part of holders to give way in price. Barley dull, and oats brat. HIILLL MAY 19. IS Si S. 5. Wheat, English, rod 58 to- 62 1 Peas, grey and black to -- Ditto white 62 to 68 Linseed, Black Sea... 66 to 70 Dantzic and Konigs- Ditto Petersburgh ... 56 to 66 burg 5B to 64 Ditto Riga and Arch- PomeranianandHam- 1 angel burgh Danish, Holstein, and 1 Memel 5O to 6 8 Friesland 4B to 50 Per Ton Russian and Odessa 50 to 60 Lins.c., Hull 9115 s to 19/ 05 04 Oats, English Ditto Danish Ditto Friesland Ditto Russian 26 to 301 Rape cakes —s Od to 125 s 04 Earley, malting Ditto grinding 32 to 36 1 Ditto foreign I 00s to us Beans 40 to 44Dones Ditto foreign , .130 s Od to 132- 6 61 Peas, white and yel. 38 to 40iFlour, per brl 30s. 325. COURSE OF EXCHANGE..-YESTERDAY. Amsterdam ~, „... ~..., 11 18 Gibraltar .... —•••• •• • • Ditto, three months .. 12 14 Leghorn .............. 29 6214 Rotterdam —.• v•.• 12 1. Genoa eeeee • •••• •••••• 25 80 Antwerp ••••••••• • • • •• 25 65 Allan ••e••••••• •• •• •• .."-- Llarnburgh •• •• •• •• •••• 13 9 !Naples ....... . .. 42% A.ltona ••••.•••• 0 • • • • • • .... ' Palermo •• • • Pari5........ ,-,........ 25 3214 Messina ... ... -130 i Ditto, three months .. 25 75 : Lisbon .. • 52% Marseilles ............. 25 77% Oporto ....... . Bourdeaux ............ 1 Rio Janelro ...... • • .... Frankfort-on-Maine •• .. 110% Buenos Ayres..,• • • .... Berlin •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• New York,6o days' sight --• Vienna.......... • • .... 10 36 Philadelphia ... . — Trieste•• •• •• •w•• •• .. •• 10 36 PRICES OF BULLION, PER OR. Petersburg ............ 37;6 Foreign Gold in Bars £3 17 ' 9 Madrid .........., .... 49 Portugal Gold Coin .. 00 0 Cadiz ......... • • ...... 49% Mexican Dollars .... 0 5 00 Barcelona •• ... •• •• •• ••• New Dollars ...... 0 0 0 Saville,. ••..•••••• •• • • -- Silver in bare • • ... •• 00 0 INGENIOUS DEVICE.—A fellow who had undertaken to serve some subpmnas, finding the roads in a shocking condition, wrote a note to each of the parties, stating, that a sum of money was deposited in his bands, which they could have by calling on him. They called and got a subpcela and 12i cents each.—A merican Paper. Au V ALUMNI fINT. SIGHT AND HEARING. —SPECTACLES.' POWERFUL TELESCOPES.— OPERA, RACE, AND PE RSPECTI GLASSES.—Messrs. S. and ti. solomons, opticians, 39, Albe" marie-street, Piccadilly, Observe—opposite the York Hotel W.—By her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent for valuable and extraordinary improvements in the most powerful and bra' liant Telescopes, Camp, 1;i-set:course, Opera, and Perspective Giasses to know the distances. These telescopes posse's such extraordinary power that some, three and a-half inche s ' with an extra eye-p ece will show distinctly Jupiter's moons , Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same telescoP e can be seen a person's countenancethree-and-a-half milei dis tant and an object from 16 to 20 miles. Eor the wahtcoat pocket, an i are of larger, and all sizes, with increasing powers accordingly. The Royal Exhibition, 1851.—A vala: able r ewly-invente I very small powerful Waistcoat Pocke t Glass, the size of a walnut, by which a person eau be W I and known one and a half mile distant. They an,wer eyed purpose on the race-course, and at the Oren. H o usc s ' Country scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 1 to 14 miic e ' !toy are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting , to sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and ton lets. Oper j ' Camp, Perspective, and Racecourse:,asses, with wonder pow.,rs. aln:ble preserving Spectacle Lenses or the greatest transparent power. The great advantage derive from this invention is, that vision impeired becomes 1)% carved and strength ene d , an d very agea persons are ena bl to employ their sight at the most minute occupation -- ; eau' see with these lenses of a much less magnifying pon —and they do n o t requ i re th e f requent changes to vli dangerous effects of further powerf u l ass i s t ance . P e rsoa , a: can be suited at th e moa t remo t e par t o f th e wor ld b y s en ins one of th e g l asses ou t o f th e i r spectac l es i n a letter, 013$ stating the distance from the e y e th e y can rea d sma ll Pt with it, and those who h ave no t ma d e use o f spec t ac les stating their age. Deafness.—Now Die ,ov_ry.—Ttio O r Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful, smelt newly ; invented instrument fox deafness ; entiroiy • diff4rent from others, surpasses anythiog of the kind that I4as been, or pr o d bably ever can be produced. Being of the same colour I ' 4 tae skin is not perceptible. It enables de a f p ersons to distinctly at church and'at public assemblies; the u npleasel sensation of singing noises in the ears i s en ti re ly Tel : 1 107 and it affords all the assistance that po ss ibly cou ld be.desir e i e —39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly.—Observe—opposite York Hotel. W. BIRTHS. • OF A SON. On the 17th i ns t., a t 2 , Hyde-park-street, Hyde -PAI4 square, the wife of Julius Munim, Esq. ff , On the 19th inst., at 61, Cadogan-place, Mrs. W. Brookfield. OF A DAUGHTER. of On the Fith inst., at 49, Finsbury-square, tho wi fe Her- W _ rmau eber, Esq., M.D. On the 19th inst., at 17, Great James-street, Be row, the wife of Henry Johnson, Esq. MARRIED. On the 18th i ns t. at the Church of th e B r itish Erctl,.,,to -0 at Pari s , Richard Bulkeley, Esq. of tb ° „' --- ,.„14319 Horse Guards, eldest son of Si r Richard Esq., M.P., t o Mary Emily, eldest d aug ht er o f H e nry P °.-1) Esq., M.P. re, On the 19th inst., a t St. George's, Hanover-scel, a _„ - o ho, H. Sears, Esq., of F u l w i c h House, Dartford, to PP"' only daughter of th e l a t e B. Nowell, Esq. D I E D. On the 18th inst., a t P ar k- grove, B r i x t on , Chao* Parry Lack, Esq., aged 47. floe On the 18th inst., at Grove-hill, Camberwell, , 1 - 69. Kemble Esq., formrly M.P. for East Surrey, og e ,,„" the On the 18th inst. in Upper Brook-street, bil"l o Ltoor eldest daughter of 'Sir Edward Workman ill scuth * Bart. of f On the 18th inst., at 142, Ch eaps id e , Mary, vi lf E. Sparkhall, aged 71. mr o . n jo t h h n e Rl7otbhsonin,satz.,edat72S.outh-street, Grosvenorret::: On the 16th inst., at Llandudno, near Conwaylo Col. Sir Wm. Lloyd, of Brynestyn, near Wrel hs bighsOnh t ire. N.W. 11. he 17th inst. Meijer:Fut, wife of the Itev• - Ncr Church, vies.r of Geddiugton, aged 39 __ - LONDON : Printed and Published by MTJEDO ,14 0 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, a t The SU Th °L"'-' 112, Strand, in the P re cinct of the Savor. in tl'4' C° of AL , Alwiez, Wednes:l.AY, May 20,1851. --,, ~., _/" l- TIT and re, Pro Perk wit] his of it F ii i 1 1r, an,