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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS--(YEsTERDAy.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolack at five o'clock. TRADE IN OPIUM. The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, with respect to the legality of the manufacture and sale of opium. NEWS FROM INDIA. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGHsaid seeing the noble lord, the Secretary of War, in his place, he begged to ask him whether any further telegraphic intelligencehad been received from India. Lord PANMURE said nothing further than the de spatch which had appeared in the newspapers had been received. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH hoped he would be allowed to suggest that it would be exceedingly conve nient if the Government of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay would endeavour to enlist the service of some gentlemen who would be competent to 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 mentioned a few days ago on the subject of the number of militia the Government proposed to embody. He under stood the noble lord to say that the Government had taken a vote for 200,0001. for that purpose, and that this sum was:to be applied to the embodiment of 10,000 men. He begged to remind the noble lord that 30 battalions had now 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 wise 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 also 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. Therefore, including the 450,0001., the revenues of the country would be charged to a less amount than usual by (about 559,0001. He calculated that the cost of the militia proposed to be embodied would not amount to mot@ than 300,000/., leaving a sum of 259,0001. surplus. He toped the Government would see the propriety of employing the whole of the surplus 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 noble 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 recruits had been received. Earl POWIS said it would be very convenient if the noble lord would specify 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 REDESDALE called the attention of their lordships to what took place on Friday, relative to what took 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 Commons' amendments for six months was perfectly regu lar, and founded upon precedent, he complained of the language used toward him by Use noble and learned lord on 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, and although he had sufficient support on that occasion to defeat the bill altogether, he ye,: consented, in defer ence to the appeals made to him, to withdraw his motion. He hoped that under the circumstance some apology would be rendered hiaa for the unjustifiable lan guage' with which he 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 accura'ely, what be he bad 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 own part and on that of his colleagues, he had stated in the most explicit manner that they believed entinly what fell from the noble lord, and even went so far as to thank him for the handsome manner in which he had withdrawn his motion. It was quite true, as the noble lord now said, that in strict regularity no previous notice of an 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 the overnment were anxious that the house should have some little time to consider the amendments, and with that view put off the considera tion for three days. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack waa 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 aide of the house, while, by a singular coincidence— of course purely accidental—there was a large attendance of the opp:..si tion. (Hear.) In that way, whatever might have been the noble lord's intentions, the effect was a complete surprise, and the only 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 negativing the [notion for acljonrnment, he was at a loss to know whether the noble lord would have taken the bill out of the bands 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 be fore, he bad not the slightest hesitation in expressing Ilia belief in the tenth of what the noble lord said, but at the same time he must positively declare that his notice had quite the effect of a surprise. There was something very indefinite in the word " when," but heating such a notice casually given ' he should at once have concluded that it meant the ordinary time when the amendments were brought under the consideration of the house by the Go vernment. Lord St LEONARDS said that the only omiazion in the noble earl's speech was the absence of any expression of regret for words that might have been used in the heat of debate. The Duke of ARGYLL observed that if the noble lord had persisted in his motion the effect would have been a complete surprise. The LORD CEIANCELLOR said his noble and learned friend (Lord St. Leonards) wished for some expression of regret for any wa)rda that might haTe been personally offensive, but he (the Lord Chancellor) contended that none such had been used. lie wai perfectly satisfied on Friday evening that his noble friend did not intend any trick, but what he said was, that if the whole question were " burked" by the noble lord's motion, the feeling out of doors would both/0 a tr:ck had been played. The noble lord had cited two precedent', but let him ask the noble 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 described 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 in his proceeding bad justified the tone in which he was addressed. Lord CAMPBELL said that previous to the noble lord making his motion he s,as solemnly warned that the amendments could not be considered until Monday, but still he persisted. Lord REDESDALE—I never made the motion. Lord CAMPBELL—True, the motion was not made technically, but still he (Lord 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 would 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. Viscount DUNGANNON had never seen such a scone 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 place "—(lau3hter)—than of that house. The subject then dropped. The Commons' Amendments to theßurial Acts Amend ment Bill were considered and agreed to. The Commons' Amendments to the Militia Bill were considered and agreed to. The Commons' Amendments to the Sale of Obscene Books Prevention Bill were considered and agreei to. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CLAUSES BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR move d t h at the em u', e' Ame n d ments b e cons i dered. Lord UDESDALE moved that the Commons' Amendments months. Be yea etaken into c ons id era ti on th a t d ay s i x induced t o t a k e thi s course upon t h ree grounds—First , by com r ut ea o s u on , of the cha r act er an d i m p or t. such magnitude that ance of the they alterations, which wer e of discussed or hastil y decided ht u not to be hurriedly In the next place he considered that What h e r enc'u rred during the of the oje present session showed the advantag e h would ac crue from a further consideration and, in he thought that the bili S p e L e „ t d ;. the third place, matters which were within the scope of its object many therefore it was imperfect, and as an imperfect re ,'„ Ure it ought not to be further proceeded with. In consider ingquestion, ho would at once the first branch of the admit that some of the amendments made in the other house were decided improvements upon Vier bill as it left that house ; other amendments, again, were of little moment either one way or another, whilst others were grave in their character, and objectionable in their effect. The first alteration in the measure which fell within thi- , last category was that which had reference to a local jurisdiction in owes of judicial separation. The clause, as a mended, gave this jurisdiction to the judges of as sEeizve,:nd to th e c h a i rmen of courts of quar t er sess ion. as regarded the judges of assize, there were reascns rendering that course not entirely free from objection, but as regarded the court of quarter sessions the provi- NiOLIS of the bill were most objectionable. Thera were no rules existing by which the practice before such a 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, E S UN, Til would arise, and, in truth, the objections to such a clause were manifold and weighty. The house would not so mach wonder at this when they considered that this clause was not the result of ewe and consideration, but was introduced—he thought he might say somewhat hastily—in order to meet an abstract resolution of the House of Commons that some local jurisdiction should be given; For his own part he certainly thought that the object of that resolution would be better gained by the appointment of another judge of the matrimonial court who might then 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 the grounds upon which the wife should have divorce. He regretted to say that he thought that all of these altera tions were injudicious. 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 against the case of a man introducing a mistress into his house and insulting the wife with her presence. Batas it had been pointed out when the bill vas 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 bands —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 right 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 sider 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 th ose w h ose j u di c i a l function s 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 dis cussion 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 bad been denounced, and how eloquently its evils had been des canted upon. Bat 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 affected the question as regarded the objection able principle of giving damages for the lose of a wife's fidelity. The nest important amendment was that having relation to those clergymen who might have scruples with regard to the marriage of persons who bad been divorced: To this amendment he did not in anywise object, and indeed had it gone further it would have bad his concurrence. But with respect to the next amendment which enabled parties, where an incumbent objected 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 clergyman and demand to have the mar riage ceremony performed. This would, he thought, enable persons coming within this act to 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 tsuched upon the principal amendments of the bill, and he thought without adding one word more he had 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, via , that the country 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 passthe other house,a period 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 petitions even at that moment coming in from the clergy, men who, from thelr position, would be 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, he was one of those who thought that facilities for divorce might be safely extended, but further consideration had shown him his mistake. And he might point also to a dis.itt. guishod member of the other house—a man not likely to be thoughtless in matters appertaining to relgion— in whose views a further consideration of this subject had made considerable alterations. Under such circum stances he 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 made some 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 had proposed, considering that in a matter requiring so much consideration it would nut 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 shou'd be considered, but related to the question whether those amendments were or were not improvements in the bill. 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 lotelshipa by sur prise there might have been some weight in his argument, but in point of fact they were alteratiou3, with the merits or demerits of which their lordships must have become familiar through the debates which bed taken place in that house. First, as to the policy or itnpolicy of giving jurisdiction to lccal 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 ho u s e h av i ng s i nce decided that it wa s desirable to establish local 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 in favour of wives. Their lordships included in the bill two grounds, and the House of Commons had added a third, The only reason why 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 partiea would be entitled to a divorce. As an oejtc tion to the consideration of the :amendments, this omis sion was moat 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, thought 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 lordships were not competent to discuss those amend ments. 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 discuss, seeing that they had had four divisions at four different periods in reference to it. As regards the question of crian con., be stood in this position : be 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• stitue. Their lordships came to an opposite conclu sion, 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 to provide that any money which might be a warded should be settled, as the court might think fit, for the wife or for the children of the marriage. As regarded the limited operation of the bill, it must be recollected that the law of marriage and divorce was to a great extent governed by domicile, and that it was eeareately difficult to legislate in one country for what was to be, done in another. It might be that their lordships would see their way to legislate for India, but the probability was that on such a subject India must legislate for itself, and if it turnel out that it had not the power of doing so the ,Igiala.tmers might have to confer it. As to the objection ing the pr e that the yb is was net to extend to Ireland, there was a state of the paopPpluylin: its provisions to that country dur sent session There were peculiarities in the consideration ; an a d fzn of Ireland which required special concence it was impossible to pass a bill for that country present one. It wa e u s :VS' thetheat this bill ought to be post with the passing of the s id es i o g the subject. W a h l act Mme poned, in order to further time for con itlartYot. was now nearly ten . w e as issued to in years ago since a roy Utstt. distinguished quire into this most important eti n it It was no party commistion. One of the members of it was his right hon. friend Mr. N . Vai• pule, who concurred in the recommendations which were framed. The right bon. gentleman was not in favour of the present government, nor was he in any way °Pposed LONION, to the church. Then, again, there was his friend Vices Chancellor Wood, who, though very different from Mr. Walpole in his political bias, was, like him, a strong friend of the church, `nd would not bo disposed to do I anything which be thought at all likely to d e t rac t f ro m its usefulness. The commission having made their report, the announcement was made more than once by the government that a measure would be introduced to carry the recommendations of the commissioners into effect. A bill was accordingly introduced let he year 1854 ; it was revived in the two succeeding years ; this year 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 late 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 tothe motion of his noble friend, but would at 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 wac, he felt compelled to vote with his nobl e f r i en d (L or d 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 l a t e p er i o d i o f th e session. 1 As regarded the original court, he entirely approved of the alterations made in its constitution. But what was to be sail with regard o the propoeed 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. He 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 709 immediately scouted. It was afterwards determined to leave the matter to a judge at assize, or to quarter sessions, or to a Queen's counsel, or a serjeant-at-law, to be named by a judge. As to the quarter sessions, it was ludicrous to talk of it. Why one case of divorce would . occupy more time than was ordi narily consumed by the whole sitting. Let theirlordships 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 oourts of quarter sessions generally knew about 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 atquartersessions could not cope with —the attempt to dolor must inevitably break down. Then again, with regard to 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 wire net cus tomary for the judges to say, " We have not time to hear it, the case must go to arbitration !" 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 eerjeant-at-law to discharge his functions, how was this to be done when there was no court ! How was a jury to be summoned I Whoever framed that part of the bill must be 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 iestance. 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 thin other suitors who had courts provided for them at the public expense. Their lordships had neither the knowledge, the material, tor the time to decide on the proper constitution of these courts, and he would sug gert that the clause should be struck out, on the under standing that a bill should be brought in next session to settle the format jurisdiction. The next important blouse was that which settled the causes which would entitle a woman to a divorce. This question had been moat care fully considered by their lordships in the house, and by the select committee upstairs. By the bill introduced in 1854, a woman was entitled to a divorce only in cases of incestuous adultery or bigamy. When the present bill 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 bill 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 ' , as borro wed from the French law, which allowed a separation if the hueband took 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 considered 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 trim. 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 eabstirin.ed, and in the bill as it went down the court was empowered to impose a fine on the adulterer, and partr ou a t n ythe pow o e f r tthe impose.ca ss oTherde r ii h o i r t r i t s e t to of Commonspayth the w struck o 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. Leonards) had read the clause several times, and he was utterly unable to perceive how that would differ from the old action of crim. con. There was, indeed, a proviso that the court should have power to direct how the fine was to be disposed of, and might; order a portion to be settled on the wife or children. They lied abolished the action of min. esti, because they I believed it Iso be a disgrace to their jur l spcsidence, whoa it had been compulsory cn the part of the husband to bring that ac.ion, 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 the exp,nse of the adulterer; and he could do so without a-king for a judicial separation. The only remaining 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 hot, let there be no exception, but make that tine law which had been done for 200 years, without any objec tion on the part of the clergy. By the bill as ii stood parties were enabled to be married before a registrar, and might, if they wished, afterwards get the sanction of the Chnrch by a religious ceremony ; but it was optional with a clergyman to perform it or not. In his opinion no such exception snould be, it would lead to endless mis chief. Fancy the position of a clergyman who would be far Jed to give the use of his church alter refusing to per. form the ceremony. He would not support such a prr vise, as he believed it hostile to the best interests of the country. He would support the motion of his noble friend (Lord Itedesdale), because he objec'ed to having the amendments of the House of Conscious 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 fallow all the details, more especially as if the amendment now moved was carried, the bill would be postponed for this session. The noble lord who moved the amendment said his object was to venti late the subject ; hut 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 happiness and morality of the people, it was desir able it should be decided at once, and he could not see any public. advantage from the postponement of the bill. With regard to the period of the session, that couli only be considered as it.affected the attendance of their lord- ships during the session, and he had seldom seen so many present as at that moment, aril if some of the most eminent members of that house were absent, he buLeved it was owing to the fact that they in the main agreed with the Government. (Hear, hear.) The Eal of CAItNARVON (who rose amidst cries of "Question") said that he would not detain the house for more than a minute. The bill contained 78 clauses, of which sfl were either now or altered eausers; 5 clauses were struck out ; 21 clauses were entirely added by the other house ; 33 clauses had been altered, of which 19 bad been altered materially and 14 verbally. After this supple analysis he thought it imposible to call this the original bill. (Hear, hear.) After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE, their lord ships divided— For the amendment 44 Against The LORD CHANCELLOR then proceeded to state the nature of the amendments which had been made in TUESDAY _EVENFNG the clauses. On coming to the clause which gives juris 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 conceive any better local tri bunal for this purpose than the judges of assize. He did not believe the practise of postponing cases in c' nse quence of the pressure of business by the judges ofassise was as common as had been represented. He had heard of such a thing, but after some practice as a judge of assize he must say he never saw anything of it. Any difficulty of that kind, however, would be provided for by the new rules and regulations which it would he in the power of the court to make ; one of which rules would no doubt provide that petitions should be pre sented in sufficient time, so that the judges might know what causes 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 them No doubt these courts were open to objection, as any local tribunal they could constitute would be; but as the principle of the bill was left untouched, and as something must be left experimental, he trusted their lordships would not object to the giving of jurisdiction in these cases to the Gouts 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 principle of the bill was to give a better tribunal for the trial of divorco cases, but 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 disadvantage. (Hear.) He spoke in the pre sence of those who took part in the proceedings of the proceedings of the courts of quarter sessions, and he put it to them individually whether they 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 t 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 the decision would be I 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 giving 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 sessions. The Earl of HAIVOWICKE said that the c our t s o f quarter sessions per firmed 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. It was ridiculous to expect that the gentle men wno 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 distinction 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 rischarge these novel duties, and then there would be a glorious opportunity of introducing the principle of a paid magistracy. 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 courts 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 assize, recorders, and courts of quarter sessions all dealt with these cases I (Hear.) Earl POWYS said that chairmen of quarter sessions had a right to protest against an important class of duties being thrust upon them, as was proposed by this bill, involving points of law of which they hal no special knowledge. The business would be chiefly in the hands of attorneys, not perhaps of a very reputable class, who would be constantly striving to set husband against wife in village communities, for the sake of making business. (Hoar, bear.) 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 competent as any c tun could be to deal with questions 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 to be almost universal against this por tion of the chime, 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 he 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 CaANCELLOR said that in every com mission of assizethere 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 important divorce cause would be left to be tried by a Queen's counsel; the proviso was s to. only introduced to meet an emer gency , an d to preserve the form of the commission the sam e as a t present. After a few words from Lord ST. LEOPARDS, his amendment was negatived without a di v i s i on . The amendment of the Commo ns i n t h e c l ause consti discussed, but i n a tone On clause 2 5 , Lord ST. LEOPARDS moved the o m i ss i on o f t h e words "adultery committed in the conj uga l d we lli ng. " t u consti tuting go Some couldptheur court furtherenot e ' was na b v amendments gathered.ersn thenaatm ennagreedatlthat were the purport of th e dis cussion The Duke of ARGYLL, though he retained his predi lection for the Scottish rule of the equality of the sexes, was f u lly prepared to admit the difference as to crimina lity between adultery committed by the husband and adultery committed by the wife. In Scotland they never found a woman suing simply on the ground of adultery, unless that adultery was coupled with desertion. Lord MONTEAGLE supported the motion. In cases like these it ought to be the object of the Legislature to guard against collusion, which was, in point of fact, a fraud upon the law. But could they imagine anything more likely to lead to collusion than the proposal of the House of Commons! The proposer of the words under consideration had entirely misunderstood the enactment of the French law which he had attempted to copy. The French law gave a woman a right of divorcs in case her husband obtruded his mistress into the house ; but 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 purposes in the coujugal residence, and yet evade the law by actually committing elsewhere the offence 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 niost'hurrible offences ever heard of—of having aided another man to commit a raps 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.) Lord RE DESDALE pointed out the further objection that a divorce might be granted on the ground of rape, and after wards a jury might decide that no such offence had been committed. Tho Earl of HARROWBY said it would no doubt be better to replace with general words the words under dis cussion. 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 would apply. Lord PORTMAN suggested that the word " con victed" should be inserted. _ _ The Bishop of OXFORD—WouId the words "adul tery accompanied in the opinio❑ of the court with cir cumstances of disgraceful exaggeration," meet the views of Lord Harrowby ? (No, no.) The house divided—: Con tents 27 Non-contents The Commons' amendment was thus rejected. Lord ST. LEONARDS next moved to leave out the word "rape" and the words that followed. Toe LORD CHANCELLOR said it would no doubt be more agreeable to omit the words referred to; and the view the Government originally took of the matter was, that as these cases would be extremely rare, the injured wife might very well be left to the remedy of a private bill. Nevcrtheless, after the opinion expressed by the Commons, he hoped their lordships would retain the words. After some conversation the house divided— C mtents Non-contents 29-16 The C.Antnons' amendment therefore stand. On clause 28. The Bishop of OXFORD moved to disagree with the Commons' amendment, striking out that portion of the clause Nhich provided that the busband guilty of adul tery should not be enabled to one for divorca. He moved that the house disagree with the amendment, by which the words, "guilty of adultery, or has been," were struck out: The house divided— Contents Non-contents The clause, therefore, remains as amended by th. Commons. _ _ ----- Lord Sr. LEONARDS moved to disagree with the GUS r ‘l5, 185 7. Commons' amendment to clause 30, the effect of the amendment being practically to maintain the action of man would seek to perform marriage in a brother clergy man's church against his will. The house then divided— Contents„ 37 Non•contents The clause as amended was therefore agreed to. The other amendments of the Commons were then agreed to, and their lordships adjourned at ten minutes psst one. or m. coo. The LORD CHANCELLOR said clause 7, which the Commons had inserted, practically maintained the action of crim. COD. When the bill was before their lordships he gave way-on that point to the opinion generally expressed by their lordships, but he was much struole with the argument of Lord Wensleydale, that there were cases in which the husband suffered great pecuniary loss by the separation from his wife. He moved that the Commons' amendments be agreed with. The Duke of ARGYLL supported the Commons' amendments. At present the action for crim. con, was resorted to in all cases because it was necessary, but un der this clause the fine, which was the substitute for that action, would only be inflicted in those eases in which the husband had sustained pecuniary loss. Lord DUNGANNON supported Lord St. Leopards' amendment. The Bishop of LINCOLN objected to the amendment made by the Commons, considering actions for criminal conversation highly objectionable. The Earl of DONOUGHNIORE also objected to the amendment. Lord REDESDALE said the amendment was an en couragement to husbands to commence actions for da• wages on account of his wife's guilt. The 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. Their lordships then divided on the question whether the Commons' amendment be agreed to, and the num bers were-- Content—Presen t Proxies 45-77 Non•content—Present Proxies 27-67-10 Lord ST. LEONARDS, with some warmth, expressed his surprise that the Government should have called proxies. (Hear, hear.) It was a violation of all under standing of the proceedings of the house. They were, as it were, in committ ee , exam i n i ng a bill c l ause b y clause. (Hear.) The noble earl, of course, could say he bad a right to take that course, but no one could say that the vote just t a k en was the decision of the house. He had meant not to give any vote in opposition to the Government in 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 names to vote who had never heard a word of the clause —(" Question," and " Order,eorder," and cheers)—and which was carried by mere numbers' - 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 he thought fit with regard to the management of the business of the house on his own side of it ; but he owned he was surprised that the noble and learned lord should object to proxies having been called, and in what be 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 Ibis 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 ebb greatesCdressing that be ever sew 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 for 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 in the other house,she should have neglected his duty if he had 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 clause which legalises the marriage of persons divorCed on the ground of adultery, but as amended by -lhe Commons relieving the clergyman from the necessity of performing such marriages when he entertains con scientious objections to them, Lord ST. LFONARDS proposed to introduce words for the purpose of confining the clause to a preseut in stead of a prospective operation. The Bishop of SALISBURY remarked that - there were cases where the clergy not fairly feel a moral repugnance to marry persons who had been divorced for adultery, but believed that the effect. of this clause would 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 chnrcb. 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 indissoluble by the law of Christ. He believed that the clause had been introduced and perhaps opposed by many under a wroeg impression. A great number of the clergy, it I 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 adulterers, and on that ground alone did they object to perform the ceremony. lie believed, 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 on 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 &insis tent for such clergy to object to the use of the service under certain cirbuinetances. There had been four divi sions in that house, 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 compromiseoffered 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 he anxious that this bill should pass. If anything should prevent it passing this year the clergy might depend upon it they would have little chance of exemption in a second. (Rear, hear.) By law clergymen were obliged to marry divorced parties at prelent, and as to the puesh 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 wislied 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 clergy was to accept both clauses, as he believed they were the best compromise that could be get. (Hear, and cheers.) Lord DIJNGA.NNON supported the amentment. He conscientiously belieVed the bill to be a most mischiev eus 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 for was somewhat mistaken. It was supposed, apparently, that the clergy wore asking to be free from I something to which other subjects were liable. But the truth was, that what was asked was th hich all other at the clergy NEWFOUNDLAND TELEGRAPH CABLE.--AA piece of the should not bo subjected to that Newfoundland telegraph cable, which was lost last year, from- w classes were fres. Let them recoll ec t th at t h ey were not has been fished up, and successfully laid 'across the river going to impose upon dissenting mi n i s t ers t h e li a bi lity to at Detroit, Michigan. marry persons divorced. (Hear.) It was only the clergy CktILD MunDEß.—Early yesterday morning the body of a male child, about two days' old, was found murdered, of one particular sect—the established church —who were to be so liable. It was no answer t o sa y t h at the feet of by straugulation, on the doorstep of Mr. Knight, build er , their being ministers of the establish e d c h urch was a rea- Harp-lane, Tower-street. son for their being subjected to this duty. That might [Anveanseeteee.]—Holloway'S Ointment and Pills. have been a just argument wh en a p erson cou l d not —By the joint action of these two inestimabl e s p ec ifi cs have married except throu g h th e esta bli s h ed church all cutaneous eruptions are quickly banish e d f rom th e but now that dissenting mi n i s t ers were p l ace d o n system, the worst description of wound s or u l cers are easily eradicated, the morbific matter w hi c h na t ure fi n d s the same footing as m i n i s t ers o f t h e c h urch, b con verso, the latter ought not to b e su bj ec t e d to li a bili t i es injurious to her are thrown out, and a tho roug hly h ea l t h y - to which the former were no t su bj ec t . H e would %en - state Of the blood and fluids is the result, restoring a :i tore to submit to their lord s hip s t ha t thi s was not a case sound mind and bo yto sufferers after other treatment in which the government oug ht t o use prox i es, and he has been found ineffectual ; in many cases savi ng surgi did so because this was a m at t er so muc h of detail, that, cal operations, and even life itself, by their m i racu l ous although the principle involved was a great one, a noble power.— Sold by all medicine vendors throu g h out t h e lord who held a proxy could not say f or certa i n which world, at Professor Holloway's Establishme n t s 244 , S way the nobleman whose proxy h e h e ld would himself Strand, London, and 80, Maiden-lane, New Y or k ; b y have voted. For his own part h e wou ld rat h er see noth- A. Stamps, Co n s tantin op l e ; A. Guidicy, Smyrna, and ing whatever granted to the clergy than see the bill in f.9l=aTtaxlmtsarir. .1— Siam AND HEARING —SPECTACLES its present shape. There was not a word in the clause w rOWERFUL TELESCOPES OPERA, RACE, AND PERSPECTIVE staying the bishop, and he would not hesitate to say that — and 13. &lemons 39, Ail, if he knew of any one of these interlopers coming te a e G e l ' e As ee s er . ene S ea . dilly. -Ohgerve—oppiosite opticians,the York Hot e e pa l, a' W l°- . church, he would meet him at the church docoeby staying By her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent for valuable and ex him with a prohibition. His object was to prevent the traordinary improvements in the most powerful and brilliant revival of the old Fleet marri ages . Wh o was it that I Telescopes, Camp, Race-course, Opera, and Perspective would come into a parish t o p er f orm these marriages? Glasses, to know the distances. These Telescopespossess Why, it was only the wretched, skulking man, who was such extraordinary power that some, three and a-half inches, living away from the pari s h on account of debt, hardly with an extra eye-piece w ill s h ow di st i nctly Jupiter ' s moons venturing to , , show his face a n y w h ere, an d he would cone Saturn's ring, and the d ou bl e stars; w i th the same telescope merely to get the mi sera bl e f ee which be might obtain can be seen a person' s countenance three-and-a-half miles distant k and an object from 16 to 20 miles. For the waist by intruding into. the parish of his brother clergyman co o a we -p rs oc ac e c t e , rd yi are of larger, and all sizes, with increasing who was spending all his strength for the good of his very The Royal Exhibition, 1851. am -A valu flock.t Often had he heard measures 'objected to in that a ri ble e newly-invented, rul ; - small,bywhich powerful,a person W n t Waistcoat-pocket seent- p c a k n e d house, on the ground that they would interfere with the Glass, the size of a waln, discipline of the clergy; but was anything ever before known one and a-half mile distant They answer every pur contemplated equal to the sending into a parish a man pose on the Race-course and at the Opera-houses. Country who had no qualification whatever, except that for a cer- scenery and ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 miles. They tain reward he was ready to do a certain job, which he are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to knew to be most hateful to those who were labouring sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. Opera, there in spiritual things ? He besought their lordships Camp, Perspective, and Race-course Glasses, with wonderful power t lnvaluable t preserving not to adopt this portion of the clause; and if that were adopted, he should beseech them to reject altogether the greatest ro.this invention power. "'he viThsieo so-called boon, which would be a new die race and a served and strengthened, and very aged persons are epabled Spectacleg tadvLa liemapairedeiase oge d a ° r i p v r e e d . new division of the clergy of the established church. to em pl o y th e i r s i g ht at toe most minute occupation—Can see Their lordships then divided— with those lenses •of a much less magnif, ing power—and Contents Non-contents • Majority f or th e amen d men t o f th e H ouse o f can be suited at the most remote part of t h e world by send- Commons —s ing one of the glasses out of their s p e c tacles in a letter, and Dmrness.___Tgew DiFcove7.—The Organic stating the dist duce from the eye they can read small print The Bishop of OXFORD then moved that their lord- with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles by ships should disagree to the clause in foto. The Earl of CARNARV ON supported the motion, Vibrator, , stating their age ; rditarily powerful, sa all, nevvl • entirely different ,ft y-invent d others, observing that it. would have been better if the Govern- :instrumentof the kind teams as been, or all ment had denied all concession than attempted to disarm surpassing a y a be rod n uced. Being of the same colour ° as or probably I f t o x r th t d i a n ifness, the skin, can,P is hostility by such means. not perceptible. It enables deaf pers ons to hear distinctly a Lord REDESDALE a l so su pp or t e d the moti on . H a d ' church and at pu bli c assemblies ; the unpleasant sensation o t the clau se came b ac k w i t h out t h e a dditi on , h e s h ou ld singing no i ses i n the ears is e n ti re l y r em " . d, and it affords have accepted it as a boon. As it stood, ho felt bound all the assistance that possibly could bo desired.-2-3-4. Me e . to oppose it. He did not believe any honourable clergy- marle•street, Piccadilly.—Opposito the York Hotel, W. FATAL SEWERS ACCIDENT. THREE LIVES LOST. A. shocking sewers accident took place this morning about nine o'clock in Whitechapel-road, facing the en trance of the late Pavilion Theatre, which resulted in the death of three of the workmen, and injury to others. It appears that as each pipe is set it is necessary to place a board over the bore so that the dirt should not get into it as the labourers fill in the working. Fitzpatrick was in the act of removing the board so as to fit in the last portion of the pipe, when a rush of foul air from the main sewer came in full power upon him, and the unfortunate man fell forward. Another man named George Franks, unconscious of what had really hap pened to his fellow-workman, descended the excavation, and on reaching the bottom immediately fell senseless to the ground. The cries of some boys brought other labourers _to the scene, and three more unfortunate fellows, AN illiam Bingham, William Goodge, and an Irishman, named Hines, hastened down to the bottom of the sewer, and were as quickly overcome by the poisonous air, and the five poor creatures were to be seen lying on the top of each other. Hooks were then procured, and the, unhappy fellows were brought up to the surface. Fitzpatrick, Franks, and Bingham were found to be quite dead. Goodge and Hines were insensible ; they were removed to the Lon don Hospital, where, after some exertion, they were brought to, although they continue in a very critical state. Further openings were then made into the foul pipe, and everything done to clean it, but the work will not be resumed until fully examined by the sewers' en gineer. Two of the sufferers were married and have left families. POLICE INTELLIGENCE.— (This Day. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. MURDEROUS ASSAULT BY A JOURNEYMAN ON HIS EMPLOYER.—Tbis day, Robert Deans, a journeyman tailor, was charged before Mr. Beadon with a most violent assault on Thomas O'Connor, No. 5, New Peter street, his employer. The complainant stated 'that about 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon he was crossing Pall-Mall. at the end of St: James-street, when he saw the prisoner, who was formerly in his employment. He went into the shop of Messrs. Hobbart, Pall Mall, on business. When he *me out he again saw the prisoner, who obser that he would murder him (complainant). He went away from the prisoner, who observed, " I will murder you if you do not give me some money." He had been previously informed by some parties at a public house, where the prisoner had been, that he remarked to them that he would pay him but, meaning complainant. ; , rie subsequently met the pri soner in Metcourtestetet, but had previously seen him in Ryder-court. Then he exclaimed, " Why, are you not going to give me some money I" Complainant made no reply, upon which he laid hold of complainant by his throat ; he grasped complainant so tight that he thought he should have been strangled. He then knocked him down and fell upon him, and became nearly insensible. [rhe complainant's shirt in the front was covered with blood, and there was a patch of adhesive plaster on the right side of his head.] Everot, C. Sergeant, N 2, said that he saw the com plainant on the ground, and he was repeatedly knocked on the kerb by the prisoner. Witness took the prisoner away, and the complainant was conveyed to the hospital, where the surgeon was almost inclined to keep him. The prisoner was fined 51., or 2 months' in default of payment. DARING BURGLARY AT THE ROSE AND CROWN, RUPERT STREET.—David Evans, John L. Draper alias Raper, and James M`Carthy, young men, were charged with the following daring attempt at burglary at the Rose and Crown, Rupert-street, Haymarket. Mr. Austin, junr., attended for Draper. It appeared from the evidence that at about two o'clock that morning inspector Park of the C Division received information which led him to go to the Rose and Crown, in which he was told these were some per- - sons. While in the street three men came out of an empty house adjoining. There were some other constables at the door. Evans was seized hold of by Savage, 130, F. The other two ran away. Draper was pursued by Mr. Park -who was not able to overtake him. Savage want afterwards to a house in Monmouth court where lie found Draper and M`Carthey. He told them what he wanted them for and took Draper into custody. M`Carthey went down stairs and was about to run away, but was stopped at the door by two police-constables. Savage found two latch-keys on Draper, and tieT other keys were found on M`Carthy. They were conveyed to the station-house. Savage further stated that he had, in the course of the previous evening, seen the whole of the prisoners together in Moor-street ; and the landlord of the Rose and Crown proved that two of them were drinking in his taproom before 12 o'clock last night, where they were above an hour. An alibi was endeavoured to be proved in the cross-examination by Mr. Justin, but his identity, as well as that of the other prisoners, was deposed to by several witnesses. Sergeant Thomas, F Division, said that Evans and M'Carthy were well known to the police ; and another constable stated that Draper and Evans were the asso ciates of thieves, Mr. Austin applied for bail for Draper, who, he saki, was respectably connected. This was refused, and they were severally remanded for a week. SOUTHWARK. POT STICALING.—Sarah Hales was charged by Mr. William Barton, the proprietor of the Waite Swan, Blackfriare-road, with stealing a pint pewter pot, his property. The prosecutor stated that he had suspected the prisoner of pot stealing during the last nine months, and the previous night he was sent for to attend the sta tion when he saw the prisoner and the pint pot produced which he identified as his property. Mr. Matthew Grogan, ,of 18, York-street, a licensed victualler said that ho was present and heard the prisoner call for half a pint of porter, when she took the measure outside the house, and after drinking the contents was in the act of walking off with the measure concealed under her arm. He ran after her and stopped her, and found the pot in her possession. The prisoner made a most ingenious defence, she asserting that she thought it was her own measure; but the magistrate could clearly see that th© prisoner was an adept at the work, and sentenced her to t No months imprisonment with hard labour. 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 ga rrison yesterday, at 12 o'clock under the press 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 Mr Ellis, proceeded to read the defence made by t°l prisonar on Friday, th e su b s t ance of which ap p e ared in the Times of Saturday. The first witness el' amined yesterday was Li eu t enant W. C. O'Shauga." nessy, 2d West India Regiment, who was IA Bathurst, Gambia, on the arrival of the prisoner, and proved that no hostilities had taken Ple' ce immediately before Colonel Clarke's arrival, asi stated in the evidence for the prosecution that there were already two field-officers at t .'" station when the pris oner arrived'. The with was present at an inte r vi ew h e ld between Colle L. S. O'Connor, C. 8., an d t h e great chiefs,e -n the greatest anxiety for peace was manifested bi, them. Colonel O'C onnor was Li eutenant -C o lonel Hill's superior officer ; and on the receipt of a let from the Adjutant-General s e p ara ti ng th e conaran of Gambia and Si erra L eone Colonel 0'0:011t commanded the whole of the West Coast of Aft",„ , The witness had deli vere d o ffi c i a l papers to the prisoner from Colonel o:Con nor , an d t h e lette r from the Adjutant-General authorizing the separa tion of the command of Sierra Leone and Ga's was kept by Colonel O'Connor at Goverernen.; house. Captain J. S. Macauley, ht West h u l a i Regiment, was n ex t exam i ne d w ith the v iol- disproving the fifth charge again s t th e p r isoner that of advising and di rec ti ng C apta i n P earso n an ; Captain Macauley n o t t o o b ey the commands Lieutenant-Colonel J. S. Hill. Before being e re amined Captain M acau l e y was warnedby the " t . : O Deputy Judge-Advocate t h a t h e was no t obliged' answer any questions that might criminate bi° l .; self, as that offi cer i s un d er arrest an d wi ll ba trio", by a general court-m ar ti a l f or di so b oy i ng the ordero of Colonel J. S. Hill. The witness stated that the prisoner had never advised him to disobey til l commands of Colonel Hill, neither had Colon el Clarke ever forbidd en ' him to obey Colonel orders. There was no conspiracy between witusll the prisoner, and the late Captain Pearson to mutiny, and if there were any dispute betwe en Colonel Hill and any o f the offcers of the Ist We. India Regiment it was not the result of the Pr . : Boner's interference. Captain P earson assu med th e of the companies on the occasion of the prisoner being placed under arrest, and veitne never heard him censure Captain Pe arson for doll so, but, on the contrary, continued on the sal % friendly terms with th a t officer as before. Witn e er had not seen any orders p u bli s h e d f or the prigt, to proceed to Gambia, b u t on th e fi rs t o pportunly3 after his arrival at Sierra Leone he had embark ; for that station. Aft er th e pr i soner h a d be t , placed in arrest the letter from the Adjutant 0010 4 General was read on parade by order of Hill, and the witness believed that the content,i'it that letter were not known in the garrison tint i ' o j was read on the 7th of March. It was undersW de d by all the officers that the prisoner comniah,,,, e , the troops stationed in Africa. Lieut. G. Tlia'" . ,„i Ist West India Regiment, the prisoner's adjnAP - 00 from 1854, until appointed to the general stag; vi the next called and examined f or th e defence, „ with view of proving the great i nconven i ence w hich * . a. crued to the service by Colo ne l Cl ar k e b e ing S , denly sent away by C o l one l Hill to t a k e the coo" ilia mud in the Gambia ; but aft er a f ew ques tions m. f t been put to the witnes s by th e pr i soner the 7 1 adjourned until this d a y, w h en it will °gol assemble at 12 o'clock. There are still 5 0 :4 witnesses to be e xam i ne d b y th e pr i soner, t o es" lish the points raised in his defence. Country Market/. CHELMSFORD—Aue. 21. leg The supply of wheat was la rge , b u t th e b es t san 3r .o4 only in request at about is per qr, cheaper infezior In be quoted 2s lower. Spring corn at last day's O, Wheat, white, old, per s. s. 0.- s o qr. 52 65 Oats, per qr... ......... 24 4 4 new 62 66 Peas i Partridge ...... . 41 ' 41 red, old 50 60 White . . ......... .39 - 46 39 ( now 50 58 Boiling ......... 0 Barley 35 46 Dun ............... 4u; 0 Chevalier 4O 52 Beans, Tisk .......... ..1 46 Grinding 35 46 Harrow 600 LI . 40 Malt 73 77 I Mazagan ....... 36 s 9 Chevalier 75 79 1 Ditto, new... 36 rates. Official Statement of the Qua in the port of London, fro Aug. 17 to Aug. 22, both i; . . tntities of Corn, &c., re e,iveci ;_ o o m the following ports, P inclusive. ___ 4. - 1 I,fr z , 4 • A A _.., , Colchester —; 110' 4 a l Harwich ll2l --570 -- —5 v Leigh - - - ---) Haldon 12128, 28 77 ---30 62 JO r,;l COLCHESTER— Aug. 22. A moderate supply of wheat, both old and new. 54 , which was taken slowly at 2s per qr. l o w e r. BarloY;0 malting was is to 2s advance on last week' s rates. and peas also the turn dearer. 4 t Prices to-daywere as follow :—Wheat, white, 62 3 -° 68 red, 58s to 625 ; b ar l e y, 42 s t o 46 s ; oafs, 28.3 to 30 3 ; bean : litazag,an, 40s to 44s ; 'middle and sma ll, 44 s to 483; P eo white, 38s to 42s ; grey, 42s to 4Gs. KIRKCALDY—Aua. 22. ° We had a fair supply of wheat to-day, but sol s .i t et barley and oats. Sales slow, Inferior qua lities•r7 o easier to buy, Two sma ll parce l s o f new barley, conch poor, weighing 511bs, sold at 30s. Wheat. I Barley.j Oats. I B ea no First First 63 s Od 34s 31s 61 I ' v ; 0 4 Second A ° , la Third 2Bs Od 2Ss 01 f 26s Ud v' :ET.—Au a. 24. t the close of the market Wallsend, A 6 Heugh Hall 1 6 6 Eiaswell 1 6 0 Hunwick l6 t3raddyll l l' 0 G E O d s e f n or h fli ain ''''' 116 6 9 Lambton 1 6 0 iietton 1 6 Montague l aussefi's Hatton •, t, 94; sold, 69, • COAL MARE Prices of Coals per ton at R. (L. . _ __ Tan field Moor l4 6 Tanfield Moor Butos 14 6 Bates's West Hartley l5 9 Htl'pool West Hartley 16 6 North Percy Hartley _l5 9 Wylaan West Riding Hartley...ls 3 Walleend, ece, Riddell l5 C Eveuwood 14 3 South Hatton 18 3 Ships at mark& LOOAL SHARE MARKET& LIVERPOOL, AUG. 24, STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions in this .-- v ls have been rather dull, and prices have been about the , lora as last week. North E a stern, Berwick, 23i—E3s Counties, 11i Midland, 834—Dutch Rheni s h, 4,i ,0 Lancashire and Yorkshire, 99--C dedonian, 4 Trunk of Canada, 12.11.3. Luxembourg Const., to o Manchester, Sheffield, and Li nco l n, 39I—Great West of Canada, new, 3s. 9d. p.—London and North' Ti jar . terns, 1021—South Eastern, 21$ i—Lancaster and 0 4 lisle, new thi r d s , 74 p—Great Western, 54—London North Western, k shares new, 11s. 3d. d. MANCHESTER, AUG. 2L STOCK EXCHANGE.—The mark e t was moderately .0614 to-day, and prices were steady. Blackburn, 7 9 "101 Great Western, 521 3—London and North Westerns , —O ,l Sheffields, 39—Leeds, 9'#--Ditto, new, d. Trunk of Canada, 12 9.16--Great Western of Canadt, 15-16—E a st L ancas hi re , 96—E as t ern C oun ti es , 11 ty , —Caledonians, 394—Dovers, 21 d—ldidaads, 83-1- 011 shire and Yorkshire, 99. BIRMINGHAM, AUG. 21. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market has been fair to•-• x , and prices have been a b ou t th e same. Sheffield St°° 4 0—Great Westerns, 53i 4—Great Western, Biroai°s ham Guaranteed, 6 9702 - General Steam, 24f—Biro ham Banking Co., 314—Warwick and Birmingham C° l 24 BIRTHS. OF A BON. On the 18th inst., at Templemoro Priory, T em ploalor 4 Lady Carden. Oa the 24th inat., at Lower Tooting, Surrey, the wifo John George Bonner, Esq. OF A DACGIITER , Onat 18, Belsize-road, St. John's-10°J the : r. of On the 23d inst., at 4, Porchester-squa ra , th e vii' - Edward M. Perkins, Esq. wifothe 0f24w.t12 inst., 3gge, Esq. MARRIED. On the 22d inst., at Dyrhatn,-- Glocestershire, Da. el o ia f Robinson, Esq., Captain 72d-Highlanders, second gin t t, the late Sir George Bestßobinson, Bart., to Ittatilda Slot e ldest daughter of th e R ev. William S. Robinson, re ° of Dyrham. On the 22d inst., at St. Alarylebone p ar i s h churob,aB, Death, of Golders-green, Hendo n , t o S ara h Fuller, of Glocester-place, Portman-square. DIED, On the 21st inst., at Ramagate, Sir William GoOr d Miltnan, Bart., of the Grove, Pinner, and Levaton lands, Devon, aged 76. T. On the 22d inst., at Edinburgh, Major-General A • Reid, 0.13., Bombay Army. as, On the 21 s t i ns t , a t Stnnehouse, Devon, Rich. Thom as, Admiral of White, aged 81. On the 21st e at,in at Fern-hill Blackwater, Col. ° tlgi't Mitchell, late of the G rena di er Guards, aged 41. On the 22d i ns t., a t W o l ver h amp t on , M r . E. Su sen., aged 90. o/g On the 21st inst., Willi am M axwe ll, Esq., of ICidb r° Manor, Blackheath, aged 78. On the 21st inst., at Manor-houso, Stepney - gre en John Howard, aged 72. LONDON : Printed and Pubiiehod by latritDO YOU I4 „ r „, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tha Sun Office, . 1 ' - 112, Strand, in the Freoinat t the Savoy. iu the coll 3tl of Middlesex, Tuesday, August 25, LOT. ~,e ra CI --_ TR: