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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY _EVENING, MAY 20, 185 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 more j available to the we a lthy th an to a ny other ekes, but HOUSE OF LORDS .--(YESTERDAY.) that was a misfortune which must always attend legal The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack i proceedings. He should feel it his duty to oppose the I at five o'clock. bill. THE EARL OF WESTMEATH AND THE 1 Lord LYNDHURST said he had been unable to hear "GLOBE" NEWSPAPER. what had fallen from the right rev, prelate, but he un- The Marquis of WESTMEATH asked the indulgence deretood 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, in co n - great objections to this bill out of doors. Many eminent nexion with the Divorce Bill, which was s e t d own f or authorities in that house were opposed to it, and there the second reading that evening. Hi s a tt en ti on was fore he felt some anxiety with regard to the results of called to an article of a m os t v i ru l ent c h aracter this measure. He should enter into no scriptural argu in the Globe of last night, in which ar ti c l e hi s name ment in the presence of the episcopal bench, but he was dragged in, again and a ga i n , i n a ser i es o f state - might refer to the authority of the Scriptures, which ments which in themselv es were utterly false, and which laid down the law that marriage might be dissolved he verily believed were lib e ll ous . I n resoect to t h e for adultery, that alone was a sufficient weight of libellous part be could on l y say t h at t h e prop e r author i ty authority upon that part of the subject. He ad would have to d ea l w ith i t . A s t h ey concerned h i s witted that, according to the Roman Catholic Church, honour, he took th e p resen t opportun i ty o f stat i ng that the marriage tie could not be dissolved, as the mar he would afford th e part i es an opportun i ty of sustainingriage tie was looked upon as a sacrament. That an them if they could. H e wou ld mere l y then con fi ne hi m - thority, however, could not be traced beyond the self to a cont ra di c ti on w hi c h h ad b een sent a b out on the Council of Trent, and it was an authority which the Pro part of a lady w h o did hi m th e h onour o f b ear i ng hi s testants of Europe did not recognise. The rule of the name, who left his h ome a b ou t 33 y ears ago , an d w h o did Protestant Church was that marriage was indissoluble, e not appear to be y e t c o n t en t. Th e s t a t emen t i n th e Globe even in the case of adultery, according to the law as it was no doubt made with the vi ew o f v ilifyi ng hi s character. stands. The Roman Catholic Church had found means Their lordships might naturally say that this being a pri- for evading the law, and so had the Protestant Church vats matter they had nothing whatev e r to do w i th it. It in this country, and hence private legislation had been had recourse to. It was impossible in a country like this should, however, be recollected that the statements were put forward in connectio n w ith th e bill th a t was to maintain such a principle. According to this system, to be considered by their lordships thi s e v en i n g. He instead of the law being equal, it was practically con thereforefinedto the rich. It was, therefore, imp oss ibl e th a t any lost not a moment in stati ng w h en th e proper solid objection could be urged to th e c h ange w hi c h hi s opportunity occurred in committ ee np on th e bill he should most certainly meet all these statements noble and learned friend desired to introduce. Th e ob . . not only by direct denial, but by most positive j e H e s n t:a l b n rshed would n to the chan notg e was, be available to any b u t th e r i c h. that the court s th a t wou ld b e and unrefutable evidence. He would be prepared denied this, because the proceedin g s wou ld b e s i mp ly by petition, to show that they were founded on untruth, and were there would be no l a by r i n th o f plead characterised by perjury and conspiracy, that ings, and the anevidence would be vim voce. Nothing they never could have been made in any court where , could be more simple. It was urged, however, that the testimony was view voce, but as it were behind the persons living at a disiance could not avail themselthat ves curtain, in the way the evidence was taken in the cede; of the new trib una l siastical courts. He hoped the noble and learned lord s bill would entirely abolish the system. local - authorities would The answer to that was uld be empowered to hear the evidence on the spot, and the decision 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 of Prussia and the United States, BORourGH, and there such a law was administered with the greatest Lord PANMURE said he etid not feel much alarm at the recent intelligence respecting the state of affairs in ease. The pres en t sys t em l e d to t h e greatest i mmora li ty. India. Care would be taken to provide against any A man discove re d hi s w if e comm i tt i ng a d u l tery. H e h a d serious consequences. Orders having bee n g i ven t o no remedy, and f requen tly th e resu lt was th e mos t b ru t a l and degrading v i o l ence . W ou ld no t a c h eap l ega l reme d y have a portion of our troops re a dy t o em b ar k for ',China, it had since the n b een arrange d in such a ca se t en d muc h t o di m i n i s h t h a t sta t e o f immo that four of those regime n t s s h ou ld em b ar k ear l y i n t h e rality. Let them look a t S cot l an d. H a d an y immorality next month for India. Th e reason w h y t hi s d e l ay too k been produced th ere i n consequence o f t h e ex t ens i on o f place was to prevent th e t roo p s arr i ving i n I n di a d ur i ng the law? No, it had be en dir ec tly th e reverse . L as t the unhealthy part of the y ear . year he objected to this measure becau s e it did no t go f ar THE CONTINUOUS SERVICE, enough. The measure still wa s op en t o th a t o bj ec ti on i n Earl TALBOT a s k e d w h e th er i t was th e i nten ti on o f his mind. He objected to th e p r i nc ipl e o f th e bill f rom it s her Majesty's Gover n m en t t o di sc h arge th e seamen i n great inequality bet ween th e sexes — men ma d e th e l aws her Majesty'a Royal Navy en t ere d an d engage d f or con - and women were the v i c ti ms . Th e man cou ld comm i t tinuona service ? adultery to any extent, an d th e w if e was l e f t w ith ou t any Earl GRANVILLE said the re was no t th e : li g ht es t remedy. The husband might be c ov e re d w ith ever y spe intention of breaki ng f a ith w ith th e B r iti s h seamen , cies of infamy connected with a d u lt er y, an d sure ly th e t r i- He thought the p r opo s iti ons th a t h a d b een ma d e to bunal that was to be est a blished o u g ht t o i n t er f ere i n the seamen in the roy a l navy, o n th e con t rar y, were such cases. It was said if this were so th e t r ib una l s very beneficial. would be inundated with applications • but they might DIVORCE AND IVIATRIIIONIA.L CAUSES BILL, rest assured that such applications would not be had re- Lord LYNDHURST having explai ne d cer t a i n cir- course to except after a long course of inj ur y. H e ap cumstances connected with a petition that had been pealed to the noble earl opposite upon this su b jec t. I n Scot transmitted to him for presentation to th e i r lordships, land the woman equally with the man co u ld app l y t o t h e The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second law, and no inconvenience whateve r h a d resu l te d f rom that state of things. If this was the state of things i n reading of the bill for matrimonial divorce, and in doing Scotland, why should it be differ e nt i n thi s country ? St. A adhere to in the bill which he proposed was the indisso- Augustine put the case of the wif e u p on th e same foot i ng lability of the marriage tie, except in the most extreme as that of the husband. H e ma d e no di st i nct i on b etween cases. The noble lord proceeded to refer to the early no- the cases. Let them rec o ll ec t th a t th ey were legislating t tions of the Church of Rome with respect to this indisso- agains the other sex. Th e y were men l eg i s l ating against lability of marriage, but under certain circumstances it women. As to the wei g ht o f aut h or i ty upon the subject, i was found impossible to adhere to the principle, such, it was in favour of th e v i ews w hi ch be advocated. When a man beat his wife or d eser t e d h er, i t should be sufficient for instance', as the pre-contract, or consanguinity of the parties, which would tend to invalidate the marriage, and ground for divorc e . Th e arguments for this appeared to to such an extent was this doctrine of consanguinity car- him t 9 be un ans aera bi e — they arose out of the very reed, that on one occasion a marriage was dissolved be- nature of marriage. A man prom i se d to cherish, pro cause the husband bad stood godfather to a c o us i n of his tect, and nev er t o d esert a woman. No promise could wife. At the time of the Reformatio n th e marr i a be more sacred ; an d if one o f t h e part i es b ro k e the con not looked upon as it had been i n th e Ch urc h o f Rom ge e, as was tract, it should no t b e th oug h t any l onger app li ca b le to a sacred sacrament, and sev e r a l canons o f diff erences b e - the other. What were th e o bj ects o f marr i age ? T hey tween the parties were laid down by the early reformers were three. The fir s t w as th e p rocrea ti on o f c hild ren, as rendering divorce attain a bl e . Alth oug h t h ose canons and bringing them up i n th e f ear o f G o d ; t h e secon d was stated to be to gua r d a g ai ns t s i n ; th e third was the had never become law, s till th e d octr i nes were s h or tl y after partially act e d u p on . Th e fi rs t case b e i ng th a t o f comfort of the one by th e o th er . All th ese sacre d o bj ects were defeated by the malicious a b an d onmen t o f the a divorce a me nsa e t th oro o bt a i ne d b y the Marquis wernano Would they say that, u n d er suc h circum greeof Northampto n i n 1550. H av i ng o bt a i ne d thi s de of div o rc e , a ques ti on arose as t o w h e th er t h e stances, she should be bound to an un f a ithf u l h us b an d ? parties were i n a p os i t i on t o " agree t o en t er i nto th e But it was said that it was d ou btf u l w h e th er t hi s was marriage contract. The question was raised befor e th e scriptural, or in accordance w ith ecc l es i as ti ca l authori courts of law, but before it was finally settled the mar- ties. This point had be en di scusse d so l emn l y over an d quit had taken upon hims e lf to settl e the c ase , an d over again, at the time o f th e R e f orma ti on, an d i t was decided that adulte r y afforded a fair ground f or di vorce . again married, and an act of Parliament wa s a f terwar d s N passed legalising the marri ag e. Th e n obl e an d learned Nor was this only the o pi n i on o f th e ecc l es i ast i cs ; lord then referred to th e ca se o f L or d d e R oos , Countess even the most learned ju r i s t o f th e C on ti neut —G rot i us of Macclesfield. and other cases of di vorce w hi c h h a d oc- —had held the same opi n i on ; w hil e , i n S cot l and, curred in the sixteenth century. by means o f ac t s o f P ar - Lord Stanhope had, i n th e mos t d ec id e d man- Lament. From the year 1715 to 1775, a p er i o d o f 60 ner, pronounced in favou r o f th e same conclu years, there were 60 bill. p asse d di sso l v i ng marr i age on ston. If the noble and l earne d l or d did not take this the ground of the adultery of the wif e . D ur i ng th e last view of the case he should f ee l it hi s d uty hi mself to quarter of that century the nu m b er o f cases i ncrease d t take up the matter. A man marr i e d a woman, lived with her a short time, spent he r mone y, an d t h en. aban o about three in a year, and duri n g th e h a lf o f th e p resen t ' cloned her—she might receiv e m ore money , h er h us b an d Century the numbers were about two in ea c h y ear , all of which, with few excepti o n s , were founded on cases of might spend that, and then aband o n h er aga i n . Thi s adultery on the part of the wife. There was no doubt had often happened. There was a c a se we ll k nown i n the annals of law—a young girl of 15 y ears o f age carr i e d therefore, that there was something like a feeling of the off, and partly by force and partly by persuasion com propriety of giving redress to the man whose wife had polled to a marriage. The man was tried for the abduc committed adultery. The question for their lordships lion, sentenced to two yea' imprisonment, but in the Was, whether tiaia was a feeling which should receive s a nction at the bands of the Legislature? The present opinion of the judge the ma r r i age cou ld not b e dissolved. state of the law had been often complained of, and in Zoo lady was made a war d i n Ch ancery, the two years' i 1850 a commission was directed to Lord Campbell, Dr. imprisonment expired, an d th e man left and was never Lushington, Lord Breughten, Mr. Walpole, Vice Chan- heard of afterwards. Thi s was not an i solated case. He cellar Wood, Mr. Bouverie, and Lo r d R e d es d a l e t o in would appeal to the noble lord o pp os it e as to the effects if the law of Scotland. By th at l aw d esertion dissolved quire into the whole subject, and that commission, after ( the most careful inquiry, recommended th a t w h ereas the marnage. Much h a d b een sa i d about the matter practice had grown up which entitled a man to a private in that country, and the lawyers there heel decided bill in the event of the adultery of his wife, it would be that desertion and adultery were scriptural causes better that the law should, by means of a competent tri- for divorce. He was astonished at the differences bunal, do that as a matt er o f r i g ht f or t h ose w h o bad Isg7- between the law in S co tl an d an d i n th i s country, timste ground of compl a i n t w hi c h th ey now obtained by though under the same Govern men t and th e same Legis lature, and they brought i n bill s t o ass i m il ate the laws special privilege. Thi s was w h at h e propose d to adopt. The bill would provide th a t th e court s h ou ld b e conet i- 1 affected the families of th e w h o l e emp i re. A man in of commerce of the two co un t r i es , b ut not those which tuted of the Lord Chanc e ll or , one o f t h e Chi e f J ust i ces , 1 and the proposed jud ge of th e cour t— t h e new C our t o f Scotland might be divorced, m i g ht come b ack with a Probate. At the close of th e l as t cen t ur in 1798 near wife, and his first wife i n thi s country might sue y, , Lord Loughborough establish e d cer t a i n s t an di ng orders for a restitution of conjugal r i g ht s, and this in the same country. His strength prevented him s a yi ng th en w h at with reference to divorce bids, a n d un d er one of thes e standing sr der3 no divorce bill could b e en t er t a i ne d un- he meant to say on the crimi na l part of the bill ; he t less there were laid upon the table the p rocee di ng s which must reserve hat for anoth er opportunity. His noble the injured party had taken in one o f th e Ecclesiastical friend said that an act i o n f or criminal conversation was Courts, and before a court of common l aw i n an act i on not to bs brought till aft er a di vorce; they were to have the divorce first, the criminal conversation after. So for criminal conversation. The effect of this require - that, however criminal the ee d ucer might be, no action ment was that all these disgusting detail s had t o h e in vestigated on three different oecasions. Th ere were many could be brought agai ns t hi m t i ll a divorce had actually grave objections to this course, among others the error- taken place. There were minor matters besides upon mous expenses which it entailed, and which placed the which he would not then eneer, but he would state thi s , that if he had postponed t h e mention of these amend remedy out of the reach of all but the most wealthy par merit they might hay© a o ne e s the principle of the bill ties. He proposed that but one inquiry s hould b e g one into, and that the proceedings should b e v i va v oce ev i- without them, but he ' fe lt th ese t hi ngs to be of so much deuce, and that before a jury instead of by the o om ph- importance that he ' ca d b roug h t them forward in order tilted mod© adopted i n th e ecc l es i as ti ca l cour t s . H e pro - that before the coen ra itt ee canoe oa their lordships might posed that a n y h us b an d comp l e i n i ng t h at hi s w if e h ad have an opporoanity of car e f u ll y cons i der i ng them. If they were mereed ili committee, he trust e d t o th e i r sense been unfaithful sh o uld b e ent itl e d at once to a decree which should gi ve hi m th e same rignta as private acts of of justice to rescue throe wh o h a d b een the victims of Parliament now gave , t h e b usta id, of curse, showing the present law by a careful co ns id erat i on o f the argu that he had not at th e same t i me boen guilty of an offence ments wnich he had b r ou g ht f trwar d, of a similar kind to those of which, he complained. It Lord. WENSLEYDALE would not oppose the se had been coutended by many persons that this bill did cond reading of tho bill, but ho had his misgivings be• not go far enough. There 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 available that of adultery, while others took a much wider ' , easily for persons resident in London, Again, a of the latitude which ought to be given. Ho view believed it who did not like to live with his wife . would eke man would be as impossible as unwise to extend the licence easy course of dissolving the marriage. The answer to of divorce to anything short of adultery. (Hear, hear.) this had been, that in Scotland the same effects did not It had been the course of the house to grant to the hue- take place, but he could reply that the character of the s two countries w as essentially different. Still, as parts ' similar privilege was band with the divorce the power to m arry aga i n, b ut a of the bill w ere very valuable he should not oppo se th o grit accorded to th e w if e . I t was possible for a wife to pardon a husbend, but hardly pof• sec md reading. His noble friend's objection that action for cri m i na l conversa.thln would only hold after sible for their lordships to conceive th e case o f a h us b an d the dissolutio n o f th e marr i age, wawa very powerful one, exceedingly rare where divorces h ave b een grante d i n the pardoning hie wife, and therefore the i ns t ances h ave b een 1 and he sincerely h ope d t h at this provision would not be case of the adultery of the husband, and they had been adopted. With this excaauation he should vote for the free on the ground of incestuou s i n t ercourse . H e pro - second reading of th e bill. posed to give as grounds for divorce on the part of the The Earl of MALMESBURY agreed with the noble a PRIVATE BUSINESS. and learned lord who h a f j us t now sat d own, that there wife, incest, bigamy, and c ase:; where adultery bad been The Willenhale (Wolverhampton) Gas Bill was con coupled with such gross crilstity ordesertion, as would with- was so much good in the bill that he should not oppose sidered, and ordered to he read a third time. out the adultery entitle the wine to a divorce a mensa the second reading. Shin' he objected to the facilities et thorn. He believed th a t :hi s course wou ld b e one most given to those who were di vorce d un d er t h e bi l l to marry BIRKENHEAD AND LIVERPOOL DOCKS . agreeable to the feelings o f th e peop l e o f t hi s country, an d again. The adulterou s p ar ti es un d er any c i rcumstances, Colonel W. PATTEN move d t h at the m i nutes of if he entertained a ny d ou bt s oi l t h e su bj ect, t h ose d oubts unless some coll us i on was prove d to the satisfaction of evidence taken b e f ore th e comm i ttees on the Birken w would he entirely removed by th e di scuss i on which had the Court, were by the bill allowed to ma r ry aga i n , Docks Bill (1854), th e Bi r k en h ea d D oc k Corn head taken place some short tim e s i nce i n th e P russ i au Ch ant - Nothing cou ld t en d more to immorality than such a pany ' s Bill (1854), te e Li verpoo l D oc k s P o ll (1855 , ) hers on the subject of the di vorce l aw . Wh en t h e bill clause. Suppose that t wo persons h a d committed the Birkenhead Dock T rus t e e s Bill (1855 ), t h e Birken whieh he now introduced had on a p re vi ous occas i on a ri d a u g l e tt a wy s , ee t i h m a c t i t e lf l e u y it w rr e y re tei t ) o k mplaarerey; was it for the i n t eres t konhead Dock Trustees) Bill (1855), the Birkenhead and that after mar- head and Liverpool Decks (Trust Property of the Bi r o paseed the house, a clause wa s i n t ro d uce d by th e Bi s h op of morality to a ll ow a f urther marriage? If a man had Docks Bill (1856), and th e Ad m i ra l ty an d B oar d o f T rade of Oxford, which prohibit e d th e a d u terer from ever roar- R - Reports on the bills, b e re f erre d to t h e comm i ttee on seduced a woman and th en d ebauched her mind, there rying again with the adultr:;ss. He. (the Lord Chancellor) raised his solitary voice aga i ns t th e c l ause , an d it was were no grounds for hini to dem an d a di vorce i n case the group Aof private bills.—A gree d t o , carried almost by acc l amat i on b y th e i r l or d s h ips, an d h e woman again committed ad u lt ery . H e wished for some RETURNS. thought of clause 19, w hi c h a ll owed three causea Several unopposed returns were . thought then, and still th o u g ht, th a t th e c l ause was one ordered to be laid on under a woman could d eman d a divorce The first the table of the house. which w o u ld be mot m i sch i evous in its tendenc - A was the of Incestuous d plea adultery. Now if which,a man corn clause to thi s e ff ec t was a l ways i ntroduced in the Ii THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK. i !nutted adultery with his wife's sister, would that permit Mr. WYLD presented the following petition from the private divorce bills, but it invariably struck out I either in the committee was of the house or by the House the man to override the law of England and to marry assignees, committee of depositors,' and depositors of the his wife's sister 1 Was he to be in the position of a man Royal British Bank :-- of Commons- With respect to the propriety of that had not married, or of ono whose wife had died ? ° That the laws now in force relating to the bankruptcy allowing actions of crim con still to continue, he thought that the beat course to a . dop , t would be to leave these ac- He suegatted that a power should be given to the courts and winding-up of joint-stock companies are defective, tions to their fats; And inasmuch most injurious to tho interests of creditors, and opposed to , as these actions were to restrict marriages ) i i, n , such cases. now reqnueirepdretpo_l: brought previous to obtaining the The Duke of NOLA. OLK was astonished to hear the the ordinary principles of bankruptcy in not providing for divorce, the rerOlisation and equal distribution of the separate eg os proposed that they iseouni only be brought in noble and learned lord assert that councils and popes had tatete of shareholders, at the instance of assignees, or the consequence of or after that l divorce) had been obtained. granted dissolutions of marriage. He did not believe that re So far with regard to the representatives of creditors. of the 1 ain w object of the bill with re- the noble lord could cite a single direct case of any such gard to a divorce. a vinous •are t ts n o destructive - n i teoests of to tti regard to a divorce a dissolution either by a pope or a general council. It was eharebolders in l a e w av a i mensa et thoro he prepti se e ed (however - com e esuous to ar=il It new cause of j e s ti. a universal opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that contributi ng f a i r l y fication, and that was desertio te to n w g ards a th ex e p e o le s letsof the often happened that marriages were indisoluble. He would, therefore, ten- the consequence and heavy a man deserted his wife without dual creditors. rbeeasonable cause, and der every assistance in throwing out the bill. expense of actions leperainnylvin after a time he came back, and if th e voile bad any pro- Lord. CAMPBELL sa id th a t th e house would receive Be ‘ t, 7 l l t e a p t tc i, y lLe d xp c e b d a i n en ee t ry to t c e on g fe ra r nt po p w re er te r tie th n e to C t o b u e rt p s o o r f . party ho took it. He proposed to gi ve in . reznaenedeletroperty of shareholders, with the consent of the s t u thi c ,m n e c e a t se de a . with respect the efforts of the noble duke to throw out pow er o f divorce a mensa et...there, an p d ee t ,2 h d e the bill, because by his faith and that of his ancestors aertion be fixed at two years. He pro r ie s r e e ntatives of creditors (to be chosen for after be a rowariag was a eacrattient. But their lordships were in that perpesrorevill decree a mensa et thoro a married wonaan shouldat no bankruptcy), upon such the . majority a Protestant assembly •; it was their terms as the Court roa the ji s int fit. titled to any property she might acquire as though she opinion that by the words of the Divine founder , o f• " That provision sboYualdnybe j m oi a t n a t et s o t c o e c n k stute the ceasing )11 in o t i n f i og.lber,haa. accordance trtaorkib:yi.rve.u:pnri obtainedstlec'yuy,itnc.)i n forthwith,os rd b e y r tha t either adjudication with the a o Companyoant ierintirnpe concurrence were an u n married wennan. This would, by some par_ their faith marriage was dissoluble in cases of ad if be thought a very inn perfer.q remedy. There T.ere to h e and it was only by quibbling that these words were, t itn of recent legislation should be I: thoso who advocated this suhject or divorce who wished (1,, b r e d explained v, ,e he company, zuel that further provisions to go much further. If he ehould have succeeded in th e isl l eydale) had said that the provision Was law 3,1 it at present contrary to toe law of England, aud that by that law marriag() re m: ti t! s o i t to stood measure) in iinpreving the stood, he should think he had accomplished mu-oh, af. . e was indisselehle. 'This Was a mare legal sub• eennech'e landla)cewthough he might still leave more to bo done. The object tie. -5 - , eetoke n by i .ye r, a .attyer, and was contrary both to coin- calls 11 - rapt ' fine y mill up and. b. Atlo the affairs of a bank- company. of the bi 4 was to do away with the anomaly of private man „l et t' e and to fa- , i , r, r 200 years marriage by the "That power should also - legislation for the benefit of the wealthy only. With law of E a , l e '-'''be conferred upon the courts had been dissolved in cases of adultery. of Baukruptcy anti Cha these few observations be asked their lordships to give a By the practice ice of the law any husband who could aigrett e s or represents' .ecery, with the consent of the as ..:tves of creditors, and also with the second reading to the bill. !prays adultery on the part of the wife could demand corwent of a certrt m • proportion of the creditors, to t' The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said hither o the i a divorce. lie aat the head of commission a •compromise 'oetween any or all of the shareholders and attempts to remedy existing evils bad led to many of the ; appointed to inquire into state of the mar r i age l aw , , 'she creditowt, which power would be in accoidatice rs w a i n th evils in the present system at this rnoment e whOing. He and they were seocked by the Caine the consideration of the pre- priuciplea already recognised by the bankrupt laws." had therefore alway s t el t 6 great doubt upon the subject of ! sent syetein. Firstly l the action for criminal tor,_ ,SAVINGS BANK BILL. legislating with regardto matrimony. The l 1 groat." ` i 1.- ' tir•. y o a e one - read believed that when the marriage tie was fiXA nO human be passed by bob house,. Lately n th t e h ß en a law ir Ad to 0 quer, what time ha inte d d fie for n e ,to x the second • —.onse of Coin, l i ng of the Sayings Bank Pill, issued en Saturday, and IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. mous had accepted the evidence as given at their lord ships' house, but he knew several cases where the Com mons required evidence of their own, this being the fourth time when the same evidenc3 was required, to the great detriment of public morality. All the commission ers, with one exception, agreed that there ought to be a tiihunal established to examine the evidence and pro nounce a decree. He believed that the apprehensions of his noble and learned friend would be fund to be ground less. His noble friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had argued that we should put the two sexes on an entire equality. This might be for the committee to consider. But 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 oily 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 friend, and no further. As it was understood that the bill was to be read a second time, all further discu4sion was un necessary at present. Otherwise he 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 WESTMEATH—I was going to mention that. Lord CAMPBELL—If an Irishman had 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 leerned friend did not with one blow put an end to that system. He was ashamed of it. He had been taunted with it, when he had been obliged to con 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 ? All dissuasion showed this. How fearful a source of evil would this bill be to the 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 and 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 REDESDALE 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 I 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, instead of a blessing would be a curse. There was no authority in the New Testament for a separation such as would allow remarriage. If 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 the Supreme. The Bishops of Bangor, Llandaff, and Durham, took the same side. The Marquis of WESTMEA.TH hoped the bill would be extended to Ireland. Tue Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill.; first be cause there was no scriptural warrant for remarriage ; and, secondly, because the bill was generally ill consi dered. His lordship complained that the term " quib bling " bad been applied 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. ' LYNDHURS r 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 law 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. The 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 halc-a crown ! 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 would lead to perpetual conflict of jurisdiction be tween the civil and ecclesiastical courts, The Bishop 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 indissolubility of marriage under every circumstance, and he contended that there might be acts of such a character as would be sufficient to reader 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 should any longer keep up the old system, but should lose no time in setting the matter on a broad and intelligible basis. (Cheers.) The Duke of ARGYLL contended that the passage in St. Matthew fully recognised the right of a man to put away his wife, not merely as a mensa et thoro,, but a vinculo, and said that his right rev. friend the Bishop of Oxford must give up the theolog'cal part of his argu ment. With respect 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 amount of relief would be afforded by the bill to the classes of England, as was the case in Scotland. The Bishop of LINCOLN said the only point of diffe rence between the member," 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 groat social and moral evils, he should feel it his duty to oppose the second reading. The LORD CHANCELLOR, then put the question that the word " now" stand Fart of the bill. The house divided, when there appeared— Content 47 Non content Majority for the second reading —29 The house then adjourned at ten minntes past ten. It is worthy of notice that, for the first time in the an nal 3 of the House of Lords, strangers were not ordered to withdraw during the division. The old system was the cause of great inconvenience without the slighte4t 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.—(YEsTEuDAY.) The SrEAKEn took the chair shortly before 4 o'clock. NEW, ME VIBERS. The following members took the oaths and their seats: C. Hamilton, Sir H. F. Davie, Mr. W. Jack son, Mr. Crook, Col. Clifford, Sir J. Owen, and Mr. Blake. i when he would be prepared to submit to the house the regulations for the future government of these banks t The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the second reading 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 bad 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, but 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 regimentalcaptains and adjutants of militia regiments, so as to affect the seniority of the former over the lat ler ; and, if so, whether he would lay on the table any correspondence or memorials, and answers thereto, which explain the 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 time, but that no conclusion had yet been come 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. RAMSDEN 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 Government did not intend to call the militia out 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 I Sir J. RAMSDEN said that the granting of the pen sions, and the time when they were granted, rested with the Treasury. QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY. Mr. HADFIELD moved for copies of all communi cations or letters that had been addressed to and re ceived from the Archdeacon of Salop, in the diocese of Lichfield, by the Secretary to the Governors of (been Ann's Bounty, from the Ist day of February, 1853, to the present time, in reference to proposed improve ments in the management 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 corsmunication 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 funds for metropolitan improve ments. ELECTION PETITIONS. Petitions were presented against the election returns of Dublin (City), Lisburn, and Bury St. Edmunds. SHEEP, &c., CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION. Mr. LENTINOK moved for leave to introduce a hill to amend au 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 infectious disorders amongst Sheep, Cattle, and other Animals." Leave was given accordingly, without opposition. AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL. Mr. DILL WYN moved the second reading of this bill. 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 that the bill be read a second time this day six months. The house then divided, when the numbers were— For the second reading Against it Majority against the bill —135 GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) ACT (1836) AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of Mr. MA.GAN, the house went into committee on this bill, when Chairman immediately re ported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday, the 4th June, to enable Lion; members to coa 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 in the last session of parliament, when the Government promised him their support. He entered into a history 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 ists. 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 cess 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 him, 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 diaereuces by the col lection of that tax. Largo 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 en mortgage in purchasin g 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 1843 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 clerks—out of that 22,0001. at least 3,000/. might he saved by uniting the offices of parish clerk and sexem in the same person. The next item of expen diture was that for Dublin curates, and here he would say that he believed it was entirely by inadvertence that the ministers' money bad not been included in the Church Temporalities Act of Lord Stanley. The next item of expense was 6,000/. a year for commis sioners, and though ho would not be a party to injuring any one, he had 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 2,500/.1 arger, with the exception of three years, than it was ever before. In the previous year the amount expended was 8,000/., and he coull not understand why there should have been any increase. He had been told that the expenditure was wasteful and useless, and that the money was expended upon churches where no divine service was performed. Ho submitted the question 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.) Ile was well pleased that the noble lord at the bead of the Government had taken Use mat ter in hand, and he assured the noble lord that the course be 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 had been taunted with the charge that he as a Roman Catholic had violated the oath which he took upois 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 get rid of this odious tax. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the bill. Mr. BEA.MISH 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 bill, 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 beru opposed by every Governme n t 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 on n no better that the Est a violation of principle, and asserting that M r. Napier was hiilrd treading c o h n ur d o a h n o g f er i o r i e l i s i g nd ro s u t nd 01l upon arguing founda tion than did this charge of ministers' money. He felt so strongly when a member of Lo rd J. Russell's Govern ob,alahnu balance as iti thatthe objection no longer Govern ment the serious objections to this impost that he h a d met it, not with a direct negative, .but with the previous hands question. o fthe ThEercleExisted the Government felt the time bad arrived to put an e nd to the collection of th c a o t ni t tn im is k s a : n no ors ministers' money. Ecclesiastical at cal 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 gentleman with great force sought to fasten on the Go• give it his decided opposition. The hon. and learned vernment the charge of being influenced in the course they were pursuing on this question by political consi deration s. Mr. HORSMAN replied to the arguments of Mr. Whitesile, denying that ministers' money could be con sidered in the same light as church rates, which always pertained to the Church, whereas ministers' money was imposed by a comparatively I': cent act of Parliament, and an act of Parliament might be repealed without in justice. Mr. BLAKE strongly supported the bill. Sir F. THESIGER contended that ministers' money was an obligation on property, and that its abrogation would therefore be 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 Church would contribute to raise a fund for the purpose of adding to the salaries of their ministers. 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 imp: rfec tions of the act of 1854. That act, as he 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 ecolesiast:cal commissioners. Thirdly, that the occu piers of houses under 101. a year should be exempt from the tale; 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 resolutinu 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 Derby, which took away from the Irish Church the church 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 12,0001. 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 great increase in their revenne 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 etating 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 had an nounced with reference to the church rate question for England, viz, that if we took away- property belonging to the churen that we were striking at the foundation of all property and endangering the permanent institutions of thecountry. (Hear.) The question of ministers' money was not to be 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 60/. 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 Derby'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 confirmed by two Acts of Parliament. Now he 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 hill 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 PALNERSTOIi 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 bad 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 clients 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 bad endeavoured to remove them. The Government of Lord Aberdeen, too, timught 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 did 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 commie sionere, 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 and of great expense. At the commencement of the present year the Government bad 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. a-yeer. They hoped that all, for the sake of peace, would consent to put an end to the heartburninos which existed, and that a satis factory result would' ensue from the expedient of placing the funds in other hands. They bad decided to take the course in the early part of the year, and he 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 he did not wish to say anything uncivil, but when they were taunted by hon. 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 support. They looked to those opposite—to those who looked them face to face. (A. laugh.) The Government bad come to the conclusion that the grant should be withdrawn for the purpose of putting an end to a cone test concerning matters trifling in amount, and important to the peace of the country. He was convinced that the house would coincide in adopting theirconclusion. So far from the Church of Ireland being injured, it would find advantage and strength from the good will which would fi a n m d p t l le y at su t ffi he- ci f e u n n t ds to of e t o h n e . it io h b i e l o l n u s p a . id N t o h m at , . tte b il leeneealepeosritooandvseetuercepneaamdly Government aetmnnomdt to ttohtwneoowchulttle:drvrege clergy. taken t It had the hon. member for Cork was identified with the mea sure. He had been its persevering advocate, and it was i sm og ove to d bya take as due to him to offer him the choice as to who should con duct the bill. Ho had chosen to have the bill left to himself, but it would be supported by all the force of the member Government, muchof t he Government. responsibilityan thed as i f Government tchhe e erbi llwass w willing ) 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 rep2rt 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. Tho house then adjourned at ten minutes to one. SUEZ CANAL.—The Charobsr of Commerce, have resolved, that they are deeply sensible of the im portant wivantages to thc: 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 mod era t e rate of charges on vessels passing througb, and a pe r f ec t impartiality in its management, it will be eminently entitled to commercial support. NEW REMEDY FOR EraEra.—Sir Charles Locock made known a very important fact with regard to the treatment of some forms 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.— Medical Timm POLICE INTELLIGENCE—May 19. CLERKENWELL.—James Cahill, 39, a respectably dressed man, late a messenger at the Admiralty office, Somerset House, and Mary Josephine Cahill, hie wife, were charged on remand, before Mr. Corrie, by Inspector Duigan and police-constable Hasset, of the E division, with obtaining by false and fraudulent pretences the sum of 2501. from Alexander Duncan, of No. 6, Chad wood-street, Tachbrook-street, Pimlico, gentleman, under the plea of. obtaining him a situation in the Admit - shy. The facts of this remarkable case were related very fully in our columns this day week. Yesterday, a gentleman from the office of the shlicitpr for the Admiralty 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 was 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. On the 2d 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 adverdse ment, that by Monday next I trust to be able to ensure an appointment in London, which may perhaps suit your views.—L. G." After 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 be favoured with the particulars, and the result was the following letter : "Monday afternoon. " Sir, Tho appointment which I referred t o in my last is one Of the highest branches of the Civil Service in Lon don, salary 3001. per year, with a' yearly increase of 151., and the salaries there vary from 6001. to 7001. 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 douceur of 5001. will be required should you consider this suitable. Send your age, &c., and address to L. G. " 106, Park•street, Gloucester-Gate." I answered that letter, and asked for an interview, but I beard nothing more of the matter until I received this letter : " Monday Evening, Jan. 24. "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 punctually the first pare of the 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 progent in town. lay 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 wrote 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 yon for a few lines by return of post, saying if you will ba in town. " Yours, &e., " L. G. On the 31st of the same month the following note was sent : "Sir,—l regret having mentioned last week, as it must be again pat off for some time longer. I cannot ascartaizi sooner than Monday or Tuesday next the precise timea may take, but will let you know the moment do.— Yours, L. G." Some other communications passed between us, and then I received this letter by post : " Sir,—l only received your letter of the 14th last night. I regret to have to tell you that I think it better 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 friend 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 ; whereveryour 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 *apt nay receiving a letter from the same party caution— ing me to be careful, and informing me that 11 it was discovered proceedings might be taken against both of us) until March 20, when the follo wing not4reached me : " Sir, —I should wish you to get to L on d on by th e 2d or 3d next month, when from the promises made to mel have no doubt I shall base this affair decided successfully. Your address in London had better be from private lodg ings, or some friend's residence, than an hotel.—Yours. ko. 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 storekeepers' depart ment of the Admiralty. The appointment purported to be 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 Gerand," 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 Hopetoun. On the follow ing day I received the following note written in a man's kand, and which bore the Southampton postmark : (Here follows the note signed "Thomas Painn," pub lished last week). Some other evidence having been given, the prisoners were again remanded. Bail was asked to be taken, but Mr. Collie 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 . ..— Joseph Phiaman and Rachel Phiaman, bis wife, were charged with setting fire to their dwelling-house, with intent to defraud the Sun Insurance-office. The prisoners were German Jews, occupying the shop, back parlour, and front kitchen, at No. 57, Cable-street, Wellelose squlre, where Phiaman carried on business as a barber. John King, a tinplate-worker, living at Ratcliff-high way, said that last FridayPbiaman 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 quantity of wood and coals laid ou the fire-grate, from which lines communicated with all parts of the room, and on these lines were suspended linen and clothes. The lines communicated also with some rage 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 np their shop and went out soon after eight o'clock. They returned between nine and ten, and witce s, on going to the house, found that the kitchen fire had been lighted. Phiaman told hitn the coals would not burn, and that he meant to put off setting fire to the place till the following afternoon. Witness called 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 had watched the pre mises stated that the kitchen dresser was burnt, and the gas pipes burnt down, and that the prisoner's furniture did not seem 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 rodged in the upper part of the house running out of the passage carry ing his chitdren. He considered that if the fire had taken place in the night everybody in the house would have perished in five minutes. Prisoner told him that his wife had the policy of insurance. Mr, Sella sail notice must be served on the prisoners to produce it, and remanded them till Saturday. 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 forcing a warranty against a person keeping what is called an ‘,`Opera-ticket office," adjoining the Royal Italian Opera, Lyceum. The applicant bad purchased the box at the "office" fn question, under the belief that the place had 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 'rraviata ; " that the office was entirely unconnected with the the atre, and that he had been charged 50 per cent. more than the fair price. He did not complain of being cheated in the price, but he thought the representa tion that the " Trovature " was to be played was a pretence for which be ought to have a remedy. He had demanded the return cf the money, which had been refused. Mr. Jardine did not think he bad any power to compel the man to return the money. 'The applicant had only a civil remedy. The wan was certaiely bound to return the money, and probably it he (the, worthy magistrate) sent a policeman to tell him co, 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 box. LETTERB 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._Mails will be made up for Lisbon, Pernambuco,Bahia, an d Ri o d e Janeiro, for transmission by the steamer Petropolis, to leave Southampton on the 24th instant (Sunday next). t —General Post-office, May 19, 1857." THE BANKRUPTOi 7 OF MR. W. PITCHER. A meeting of the creditors of Mr. Wm. Pitcher, 'of Northfleer, shipowner, &c., who has lately:us pended, was held yester lay, Mr. White presiding) when the subjoined statement was presented by Mr. J. E. Coleman, the accountant : STATEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF WM. PITCHER, OF NORTH FLEET, KENT, SHIPOWNER, &C., MAY 9,1857 DR. To creditors unsecured £60,803 9 6 Creditors 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 Sic contra £1,950 0 0 Liabilities on bills received 1,824 7 1 Expected to be duly honoured at maturity. CR. By cash balances West of Ireind Fishing and Fish Manure Company's shares, estimated at Loose tools, stores, dic., estimated at Debtors good Estimated amount to be received on com- pletion of vessel now building for the Russian Government, say Surplus security with creditors contra Amounts under £lO, and to be paid in full . £l3B 17 11 Salaries, taxes, rates, and other charges ... 939 15 9 Household furniture, &c., - stands at c05t....... 1,023 3 2 1;26,417 1 3 6 " It was explained that the assets will realise about ss. in the pound if the stock be sold by auctiou• and another valuation (could arrangements be mad e to secure an incoming purchaser) shows about Os' In 1852 the estate exhibited a surplus of 13,00 01 . 1 but loSses have since occurred, and these, with the interest on borrowed capital, private ex p en diture' and the difference in cost and estimated value of premises, have caused the deficiency. One creditor complained of the manner in which his debt h O , l been contracted shortly b e fo re th e suspens i on . suggestion was made to wind up by inspectorship' but several creditors thought that an offer of COn' position would be accepted. Mr. Coleman stated, that if the creditors will agree to take 6s. Bd. ill the pound he will endeavour to make arrangemen ts for the payment of that amount within two mouths' The majority supporting this proposition, a cal mittee was appointed to carry it out, and a mell l ° - randum was drawn up, and signed by many of the patties preient. Country Markets, LIVERPOOL—MAY 19. The corn exchange this morning was well attended by millers and dealers, and the tran.actions were nnmer° ° '' chiefly in Indian corn, which was in request to s atisfY4 continued demand for Ireland, at an advance of 9d to per qr. Prices were nominally the same as on Tuesday, wheat, flour, oats, and oatmeal. Barley dull, and lowed Beans scarce and rather dearer; peas a dragging sale 3 . 11 easier in price. This afternoon's weather is all that could be desired f or for the progress of vegetation. - LEEDS, MAY 19. We have a good supply of wheat to-day. On the wh °l° the trade shows more tone than on Fri , ,ay, and a veil business is done at fully that day's rates. Barley'' "; fore. Beans continue in request at steady quotatio n Oats and other articles without alteration. Average prices of grain—Wheat, 57s 9 d ; barley*, Od ; oats, 28s 51d ; beans, 46s ; peas, 43s OA " rye, —s. Od. NEWCASTLE—MAY 19 yi A scanty supply of wheat from farmers, and S a turatl u t full prices obtained. South country wheat slow sale, r ob i no disposition on the part of holders to give way in. Barley dull, and oats firm. HULL- is s 1 Wheat, English, rod 58 to 62 Ditto white 62 to 6& Dantzic and Konigs- berg 5B to 64' Pomeranianand Ham- ;Peas, • s. grey and black -- t. 4) 'Ditto Black Sea... 66 to s io !Ditto Petersburgh 56 to lAitto Rigaaud Arch- 50 angel burgh Danish, Holstein, and i Memel 5O t ° 56 (' T ° Friesland 4B to 50 Per +", 1 1 Russian and Odessa 50 to 60ILins.e., Hull 9115 s to 1010170 Oats, English Ditto Danish Ditto Friesland Ditto Russian 26 to 301 Rape cakes —s Od to 125°, 0 Barley, malting Ditto grinding 32 to 36 Ditto foreign 46 to 50 Guano OOl Os 81t ° o 5 1g Beansig Ditto foreign ti 40 to 4411 3 0nes Peas, white and yel. 38 to 401 F lour, per brl COURSE OF EXCHANGE.-YESTERDAY• imsterdsm 11 18 Gibraltar • ..... •• „,•, -- 6214 Ditto, three months 12 Leghorn ...• • • • • Rotterdam 12 Genoa ........ • • ...• •• Antwerp ........ Brussels .... • • Efambirr,e;h Altona ................ I Palermo .... .• •• 25 32% Messina ... •• Ditto, three months .. 25 75 Lisbon ..• •• 525 52 5 Marseilles ..... ........ 25 7734 Oporto ...... Bourleaux ..•• Frankfort-on-Maine .... 119% Berlin •••••.•••• 41 . • •• •e Vienna •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• 10 36 /0 36 Petersburg ............ 37 Madrid ••••••••••,..• ••• 49 Cadiz •• •• •• •• •• •• ••• •• 49% Barcelona •• •• •• •• •• Seville.. •• .• •• Rio Janeiro ..... . •• Buenos Ayres.... Now Yorli,6o days'aight Philadelphia .........• PRICES or BULLION, PEN 9 Foreign Gold in Bars £3 1 ,.; 0 U , Portugal Gold Coin .. 0 Mexican Dollars 5 0 New Dollars ...... 0 0 n 0 Silver in bars 0 0 e 0 INdENIOLTS DEVICE.—A fellow who had underta - .4 to serve some subpoenas, finding the roads in a sho ci t l v g condition, wrote a note t o eac h o f th e p ar ti e s, st 3 ,i c li that a sum of m one y was d e p os it e d i n hi s hands , ' /ILO they could have by calling on him. They called and a subpeena and 12i cents each.—American. Paper. 0. , 1A D VERT'S MOM. j—SIGHT AND HEARING. -SPECTACI' S , O 4 POWERFUL TELESCOPES.— 0 FERA, RACE, AND PERSP S ' O ,4' GLASSES.—Messrs. S. and Li. fWlonlons, opticians, 39p i ttel marle-street, Piccadilly. Obserie=opposite the York W.—By her Majesty's Royal Letters Patentfor valuablV extraordinary improvements in the most powerful ancloo liant Telescopes, Camp, Racecomse, Opera, and PersPed Giasses to know the distances. These telescopes F ° r eal such extraordinary power that some, three and a-half 0 ,0 with an extra eye-piece will show distinctly Jupiter's in ° ,Fo Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same tales'ilio , can be seen a person's countenance three-and-a-half in i !7 c o o taut and an object from 1G to 20 miles. Eor the wo , '"iti% pocket, anal are of larger, and all sizes, with iner7,ir powers accordingly. The Royal Exhibition, 1851. A„„ e Vt able newly-invente l very small powerful Waistcoat Glass, the size of a walnut, by which a person can 19° fe d and' known one and a half mile distant. They answer 1 0 0. purpose on the race-course, and at the Opera 0° i lea' Country scenery, and ships are clearly seen at I. to 14 ; tat 'they are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, vo n ' tot to sportsmen, gentleman, gamekeepers, and tort ists. v A SI9 Camp, Perspective, and Racecourse - Wasses, with woo' til ° , pow, rs. —lnvaluable preserving Sp ec t ac l e L enses •te" greatest transparent power. The great advantage 0 '"pel; from this invention is, th a t v i s i on i mpa i re d becoren,le esrved and strengthened, and very agel persons are (no , to employ their sight at the most minute oecupO o fie t can see with these lenses of a much less magnifying P tb ° , —and they do no t requ i re th e f requen t c h ange s t ° 0 00! dangerous effects of further powerful assistance. r e so vai can be suited at the m os t remo t e p ar t o f th e wor ld by 00`, in.; one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter' tiro stating the .disc ince from the eye they can read unal lr g with it, and those. who have not made use of Fpect ie stating their age. Deafness.—New Discovery.- -3 : 0 - 4 genic Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful, small "„ 0 invented instrument for deafness, entirely diff_rent fr; plea others, surpasses anything of the kind that lias been, , ° ,O 11 f bably ever can be produced. Being of the same eo•T o tae skin is not perceptible. It enables deaf persons ; 0 0 0 distinctly at church and at public assemblies ; the u112 .. ,% 0 t0t sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely 1 7;0 0 4 and it affords all the assistance that possibly could be be -39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly.---Observe—oPP° York Hotel. W. BIRTHS. OF A SON. 0 1 ‘' 4, On the 17th i Effd r .inst., at 2, Hyde-park-street, 0, square, the wife o f Juli us Mumui, Esq. W. On the 19th inst., a t 61, C a d o g a u-place, Afro . Brookfield. fif' of OF A DAUGHTER. On the lEth inst., at 49, Finsbury-square, the Heran eber, Esq., .D . 31u 0 41 On m W the 19th inst., at M 17,. Great James-stree t, row, the wife of Henry Johnson, Esq. MARRIED. ~n w 01 bli gl6 On the 18th inst., at the Church of the British x'"-- at Paris, Richard William Bulkeley, Esq., of tije l° l4/1' Horse Guards, eldest son of Sir Richard i Tsl *, l3 „l3s l4°lP M.P., to Mary Emily, e ld es t d aug ht e r of kion" T. E O sq., M.P. uof e 'bet On the 19th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-1310c H. Sears, Esq., of Fulwich House, Dartford , t ° only daughter of the into B. Nowell, Esq. - - DIED. • ro d On the 18th inst., at Park-grove, Brixton, Clit'9.llrliti Lack, Esq., aged 47. On the 18th inst., at Grove-bill, 11, •tt C am berwe e d b-; b e Kemble, Esq., formerly M.P. for East Surrey , vit o p to ' e , On th 18th inst., in Upper Brook-str ot A e cuag b eldest daught e r of Sir Edward Workman "'"' f)U. Bart. wife 0 o On tho'l6th inst., at 142, Cheapsido, ga l l' rot E. Sparkhall, aged n. , o „ors 4 On the 17th inst., at South-street, , Gr° s ' . t.' P ell • Mr. John Robson, aged 72. 1 -UVr reX,WA , On the 16th inst., at Llandudno , near Con Wi t l 2 o h P eti Col. Sir Wm. Lloyd, of Brynestyn, near " •if P.' bighshire. N.W. On the 17th inst. Melicent, wife of the Itev' ICC 4—* Church, vicar of G-e ' ddington, aged 39. -----"•••••• 15., LONDON : Printed and Published by 1-'" Idlfitp°,2,o, of No, 112, Strand, Printer, at 27te Stes '" t" ° "00 112, Strand, in tho Precinct of the S a voy. in of Middlemex, Wedneclay, MAY 20,1867. MAY 19. MP u eltig r e .. EA yqd 414,1, kc 41 The ` 4, 1.1 to ' t t o g n old by i i .'" , , I, 144 PEU] A ti th e ;10',Zettic I _ -X94,9731 6 3 £Bl 6 6 ipo 0 0 , 20,200 0. u 765 0 9 1,40) 0 0 4,950 0 0 27,496 7 ' 1,078 13 8 ili will r ONLi I X4, AdMI and Et ( in con e th nibe . th e Boi ' , /tett, e ~e~t,, 1t o ~`li~a r ns, i re l ifa~vi ' of ~ 1 orkand , ethzarntl.