The Sun. — London, England, 1857-08-14 00:00:00

[MPERIAL PARLIAMENT. -- HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CILINCELLOLI took his seat on the woollack at 5 o'clock. Lord DUNGANNON* gav e notice that le-morrow he should ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, in consequence of the funds fKliing into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission, by the death of Bishop Ellomfield, it is in the contemplation of the Government to offer any remu neration to Dr. Ilinds, who has lot: ly I•signed the see of Norwich. Kord REDESDALE presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Ely praying to be heard at the bar of the house against the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill. THE BENGAL ENGINEERS. Lord ELLENBOIIiOUGH said it would be recol lected that a short time ago a statement wai made by a noble lord (Lard Melville), not now in his place, respecting the discipline of the Bengal army. It appeand that some stores were found hid under a tarpaulin, and such a circumstance De cesarily led to some very severe animadver• sions on the character of the Bengal Engineers. He had a communication from Col. Mansell informing bin that the matter had been inquired into by the late General Whish, and he begged that the house would susoend its judgment on the circumstance until the result of the inquiry was made public. The officers in the Bengal Engineers were taken into the corps by competitive f aimivation, and this was the first charge be had ever heard against the corps. TAFF VALE RAILWAY. Oa the moti )n of Lord RE DESDALE, the Taff Vale RAilway Bill was read a third time and passed. TEIE SWANSEA CENIETERY. On the order of the day being read tor going into com mittee on this bill, The Bishop of St. DAVIDS called the attention of their lerdships to some charges that bad been made against him by no less a person than the Secretary of State in the other house. If the matter merely related to himself he should not have troubled their lordships with any observations, but the matter was of deep interest to the clergy of the Church of England, and such being the case, it was his duty to enter into some Explanation. In the first 'place, be solemnly protested, if guilty of any violation of the law, it had been committed most unconsciously, and nothing that had occurred warranted such a charge against him. The charge against him was that he had not availed himself of the discretionary power vested in him before he did the act for which he had been so harshly censured. The right rev. prelate, who made a statement to their lordships the other evening Lad by mistake very much overstated the income of the Vicar of Swansea. The total income of the vicar from all sources only amounted to 831. per annum. A correspondence between himself and ti e Burial Board, a copy of which he held in his hand, had been printed and circulated, from which it appeared that he had been applied to consecrate a new burial ground, to which request he wrote to the board expressing his willingness to consecrate the ground provided. A conveyance was provided to convey the vicar to and fro as he resided a considerable distance from the spot, and was in possession of so small an income that ho did not think such a re quest unreasonahl., but the members of the Burial Board refused to accede to such a request, and the re -8114 was that he had refused to consecrate the cemetery. Earl GRANVILLE thought that the bishop had acted contrary to the spirit and letter of the law. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S denie l this. The Bishop of OXFORD moved an amendment to the clause which proposed the forming of pauper burial grounds. Such a distinction in death was invidious. Earl GRANVILLE thought the paupers were of a different opinion. They preferred being buried with their friends and relatives. Tunis lordships did rot laugh at this, but went on in a conversational style, until not being able to agree they divided—Contents, 22 ; non-contents, 13 ; majority, 4. The Glance was, therefore, agreed t-r. Earl FORTESCUE p )int.ed out the sufferings of the London clergy from their dead being taken from them. He wished to restrict the number of interments in cemeteries to two in one grave, and four in aey one day, but the noble earl took nothing by this objection. He then ft:Lowed it up by objecting to the clause which gave au appeal to the archbishop, to a burial board in cases where a dispute arose between them and the bishop of the diocese. The Bishop of LONDON supported the cliu3e. Lord DUNGANNON and the Bishop of OXFORD opposed it. Lord WENSLEYDALE suggested that the cemetery might be shut up for years while the bishop and arch• bishop settled their quarrels. He moved, therefore, an amendment that if the Home Secretary declared the cemetery in a fit state, any clergyman might officiate peading the settlement of any question in abeyance. The amendment was agreed t'. On the clause regulating fee-, &c., The Bishop of LONDON moved that the fees be the same for burial in unconsecrated as in consecrated ground. The Bishop of OXFORD supported the motion. He, considered it a great scandal that there should be airy huckstering ;aid cheapening to induce the relatives of the dead to bury them a 4 Dissenters. O. this their lordships divided-- For the clause as it stood I' l ,r the amendment • Majority —2 - - - - The remaining clauses were agreed to, after a fruitless attempt of the Bishop of Oxford at delay. The B iundaries of Borought Extension to( Scotland) passed through committee. Ile Municipal Corporations was read a third time an l pas3ed. The Ma: rid Wxnah's Revel sionary Interest Bill was passed through committee. The New Z ,aland L , )au Compary's Bill, the New Zia land Company's Calms Bill, and the New Z3aland Go vernment Act Amendment Bill were pawed through ematnittee. DIFFICULTIES AT CONSTAN rINOPLE. 'Lord CLANRICARDE said that it seas perhaps herdly necessary to put the question of which he had given notice, as it had been asked in the other house, and an tx‘semely satisfactory answer had been given. The house had received an assurance that though difficulties hal arisen at Constantinople, there was no danger that they would g,nerate any change in the political relations of Europe, or would affect the atianee, which was a mat ter of greater importance to this country than any of the details of the settlement of the Principalities. He com e lained, however, that documents were not placed on the table which were fully circulated out of doors. From such documents a belief prevailed that the interference of the Porte in the elections had been such as to render the whole proceedings absurd as the supposed expression of the feeling of the people. lie hoped nothing would be done till there had been a fair and free election. The noble I ird concluded by putting his question. Lord CLARENDON said it was true there had been a great dewy in coming to a defieite conclusion -in this matter, but it must be remembered that one of the chief cLuscs of that delay was the difficulty as to Bessarabia. Ic v.as felt that the elections would not proceed till the Austrian occupation had ceased, as it would not be thought that the *lector could be free is the presence of Austrian bayonets. But tee account of the season, neither could the troops be removed nor could the commissioners proceed to their posts, and so they did not commence Operations till May. Then the firman which had been settled at Constmtinople was understood in a different sense in Moldavia and Wallachia, so that it had to be referred back to Constantinople to decide on the correct interpretation. When the protocols came to be laid on the table, they would find that the conduct of Sir Henry Bulwer had been of the most impartial character. It would not be fair to publish at present the protocols, in which six powers were concerned, and which at present were regarded as confidential. Toe real point of diffe rence had been the interpretation of the finnan as applied to Moldavia. It had been decided that it should be inter pretated in the same manner as for Wallachia, except in some details which necessarily differed from the circum stances of the country. The elections had been pro ceeded with and completed in the meanwhile. Some of the powers protested against the Dican as not fairly re presenting the people, but the Sultan did not think it would be becoming to his dignity to act upon that sug gestion, unless be was requested to do so by the unani mous voice of all the powers. Thus arose misunder standings which were not much amended by telegraphic despatches being misunderstood. It eo happened that the interruption became known just the moment when the Emperor of the FrencS arrived at Osborne, which afforded an opportunity of revising the whole of this very complicated matter, and led to a conclusion that though there had been no regular scrutiny upon 'which the elections could be declared null and void had they occurred in this country, yet there was a prima im t le e c i e t i ocnaes! ...against the fairness and regularity of the Porte a. et was f e lt th a t it was f or th e i n t eres t of the of the ` u p :. orz o doubt of the faithf u l r e presentation Sultan having should Exist. He trusted that the deicated his dignity by the course he had taken, ho believed to &rant the request of the other Powers, and u, the Suggestions. there would be no diffi culty in carrying out S ;;lestiom. mo r i T ON ED. On the motion of Lori EAGLE of Brandon, ihe standing order of the ad Jul respectin, the refer ence to the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper o f th e Great Seal, of cla i m s and tights of votin of representative pe ers of Ireland, should the election extended the case of parties who claim the ri ght of votin g by to virtue of peerages , under which votes have been ggive. and admitted at the election for such representative peers of Ireland. WILLS, &c., OF BRITBILLISTI SUBJECTS ABROAD . On the motion for the second reading of this b.ll, Lord WENSLEYDALE contended that all the pur poses wouli be secured b y proper instructio ns bein g given to the consuls, which might be done by a note, thus rendering the but unnecessary, If wills were made in duplicate, one according to the law of the country, and the other according to the law of England, all diffi culty would be removed. Lord CLARENDON', with all respect for the sugges tions of th e no bl e and learned lord, supported the bid lie could assure his noble and learned friend that he would give his beat attention to the matter, as well as his noble friend on the wo o l sac k ; and if they could devise any means by which the diplomatic consular agents abroad could give the information suggested, it shotil I be done. ' Lord WENSLEYDALE said the necessary instruc tions to diplomatic and consular agents might be given in the shape of a short note. On the second r ea di ng of the bill he should move a resolution to that effect. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILLS. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from Mr. M`Dougall, of the Tipperary Bank, complain ing of .he unfair preference given to judgment credittrs by this bill, and praying that that defect might be re medied in the present measure. The motion that the bill, as amended, he taken into cans:deration on Monday mat was agreed to, and their lordships adjourned at ten minutes pact nine o'clock. ordinary state into which they were being driven by teis bill, than the speech they had just beard. (Hear.) it was the speech of a most intelligent member of the house—(laughter)—expressing his opinion with candour that was highly honourable to hirn, though partaking of the spirit of Draoo. Rape and bigamy had always been considered diff,rent by the law of the land, and, contrary to the lion. member's ideas, the former had always been put in the higher category, and subjected to heavier punishment than the latter. The hon. baronet's speech appeared to be a specimen of the average round of mem bers of Parliament who approached this subject, but they were not celled upon then to discuss the relative degrees of guilt in the two crimes, but the question what other criminal offences ought to be included in the category of offences that should give a wife ground of divorce against her husband. Bigamy was the only case of felony included in the present bill for that purpose, and that being so, why should not others, or at any rata those felonies that bore on the marriage state, he also inserted I Unless a satisfactory answer were given to the question he should vote against the clause. Lord PALMERSTON said the question was an swered in the former part of the day, viz., that bigamy was an offence particularly against the wife, and tended to desertion, whereas the other cases of felony were offences against society only. He hoped the committee would assent to the proposition. After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he understood the question of the hon. member for Oxfordshire to be whether, if the charge of bigamy came before the civil tribunal under the bill for the purposes of divorce, the determination of that tribunal, or the evidence taken to arrive at the conclusion,!could be used in a criminal court against the husband for the same offence, and his answer was, that it could not. He deprecated being called upon to answer questions in the midst of a discussion not for the purpose of eliciting information, but on which to found acme other argument. Mr. HENLEY said that he felt certain such proceed ing could not be used against a man, but he thought a verdict against him in a civil tribunal would prejudice his case before a criminal tribunal. Alter some further remarks from Lord J. Manners, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Lygon, Mr. Ayrton, and Mr. Glad stone, on the effect of the words if put in force, . The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the proceed. ings of the two courts would be analogous to the present mode of proceeding in cases of libel. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was impossible for him to atoa ter the noble lord's (the member for Lei cestershire) question relative to the decision of the Lords on questions of felony subsequent to bigamy without searching the journals of the House of Lords. He hoped the committee would not enforce that a woman should be compelled to prosecute her husband for bigamy before suing for a divorce. Mr. NAPIER differed from the Attorney-General, that the proceedings under this tribunal were analogous to proceedings for libel. In that case a jury were ein pannelled, but in this bar no jury was to be summoned to try the bigamy, and it would be quite new to our laws that felony should be tried without the intervention of a jury, The term bigamy was a term unknown to the common law. Coke's definition of it was a man marry ing two women consecutively, or a widow. (Laughter.) Sir J. GRAN A M said he had no wish to multiply difficulties ; but supposing under those words the civil tribunal dissolved the marrioge tie, and the criminal tri bunal afterwards decided that the bigamy was not proved and acquitted the man, such a state of things would be an absurdity, as well as inflict injury, because the mar riage could never be renewed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that bigamy was well known to the law. In the event of any difficulty aris ing relative to the two proceedings, it would be competent for the civil tribunal, after taking evidence, to suspend its proceedings, and direct that the evidence should be laid before the Attorney-General which would have the effect of making a criminal proceeding subservient to the civil power. All courts had that power. Lord J. MANNERS asked if that really were so, and where he could find the words in the hill giving that power 1 (Hear, bear.) Mr. GLA.DSTONE hoped the committee would be properly informed bow the matter stood in that respect. (Hear, hear). The ATTORNEY-GENERAL referred to the right hon. gentleman the member for Wallingford fur an answer. (dear, and laughter). Sir G. GREY said that the Attorney-General had already stated his views on the law, and no gentleman of the long robe in that house had ventured to contra die: him. (Hear, heal). Mr. G'LADSTONE asked his friend the member for the University of Dublin to answer the question. Mr. NAPIER said that every court possessed the power after it had taken evidence of laying that evidence before the Attorney-General for his consideration. Mr. MALINS thought that it was not in the province of any court to direct an indictment to be brought against any person fur the purpose of serving a special jurisdiction. Mr. laid before it for Mr. ROLT concurred in the opinion tbat it would be out of the province of the proposed court to direct an inquiry such as that referred to by the Attorney- General. After some discussion as to the course adopted by courts of law in cases where indibtments wets directed to be prepared by the A.torney-General, The LORD ADVOCATE said that the discussion was one entirely beside the question put by the right hon. baronet the hon. member for Carlisle. Cases cer tainly occurred, where civil courts dealt with cases which afterwards came before a criminal court, and whatever might be the relation which bigamy held to the offence 'for which divorce might be granted, there could be no doubt that bigamy was in itself a crime sui generic. Mr. PULLER thought that some discretion ought to be allowed to the court in dealing with cases of this kind. Mr. WIGRAM thought that the best course would be to make it necessary to produce legal evidence of the conviction of the crime of bigamy before granting a (hear, hear)—and ought not to be adopted by any Go vernment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the amend ment of the noble lord would not accomplish what was desired. It should not be for mere adultery once com mitted, and he moved to aeeend the amendment that it should be adultery committed by a husband with a mistress in the same house in which his wife resided. Mr. HENLEY thought the amendment of the At torney-General would fail in the o , jest desired. No man would be such a villain as to take his mistress hoses. The relief should be given where adultery was com mitted with the servante e as was ofte❑ the ease. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he had no desire to propose anything that would set aside the de cision of the committee. His object was to give the relief not to one act of adultery, but in cases of habitual adultery. The present law gave a wife relief for habitual adultery committed in the conjugal residence, and it was to preserve the principle of the present law that he pro posed this amendment. He, however, would withdraw the amendment. Mr. CLAY alluded to the difference of opinion ex pressed by society with reference to the crime of adul tery in man and in woman. He thought it was unde sirable to give too great facilities to woman to dissolve the marriage tie, especially in what might be considered the accidental irregularities of the husband. He sug gested that the clause should be amended, giving woman divorce where adultery was habitually committed in the conjugal residence. Mr. GLADSTONE said that crime in men and wo men was tinged with their relative position. In the case of drunkenness and many others, the crimes were considered worse in woman than in man, but yet legisla tion affected them equally, and why should it not be the seine in this case. He thought there would be a diffi culty in proving habitual adultery, and referring to the words of the Attorney-General's amendment he said that terms varied so much there would be a doubt is affixing a true meaning to the word "mistress," because in pre sent society mistress was the wife. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL withdrew his amend ment. After some remarks from Lord J. -MANNERS, Mr. MALINS appealed to the noble lord not to pro ceed further with the bill after the discussion that had taken place on the clause, and the principle acceded to by the noble lord (Palmerston). Mr. STEUART supported Mr. Malins' appeal to Go vernment. The amendment was the❑ agreed to. Sir W. HEATHCOTE called the attention of the committee to the words in the clause giving power of divorce to the wife on proof of bigamy on the part of the husband. The words, as they stood on the bill, would apply to bigamy on the part of the husband only. He moved the omission of the words. Bigamy was a statut able offence, and did not constitute adultery without cohabitation. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said be understood the word bigamy in the clause to mean cohabitation with a woman to whom a man had been secondly married. Mr. GLADSTONE said the meaning of bigamy in law was merely proof of the performance of the marriage ceremony on the first and second occasion, but by this bill a new meaning world be given to it. To give di vorce for bigamy without adultery in a bill where divorce i❑ certain cases of adultery was to have been withheld would be a gross, shameful, and disgraceful bluder. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to amend the clause by adding after bigamy, followed by cohabi tation. Mr. GLADSTONE said that would not meet the difficulty. It it was to be bigamy, followed by cohabi tatiou, it ought alit to be applicable to bigamy preceded by cohabitation. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to amend the clause with the words "adultery and bigamy." Mr. AY RTON said that under those words the adultery might be committed by one person and bigamy by the other. (Laughter.) He suggested the words should embrace bigamy and adultery in the same persons. After some further discussion, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed the words should be " bigamy and adultery with the same persons." A disscusion ensued on the application of the words, and it being four o'clock, it was arranged that the chair man should report progress, and resume again at six o'clock. The other orders were disposed of, and the house then suspended its sitting. The house resumed at six o'clock OFFICIAL DEBTORS (IRELAND). Iu reply to Mr. HATOLIELL, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said it was the intention of Government next session to bring in a bill to withdraw the protection from arrest from Lfficial debtors in Ireland, in accordance with the recom mendation of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. LUNATICS. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Shepherd's Disabilities Removal Bi'l was read a third time and passed. Lord Rivers' Estate Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. LAMBETH MANUFACTORIES. Mr. ESTCOURT enquired of the Chief Commissioner of Works if he had received any answer from the autho rities of Lambeth relative to the communication he had made to him in reference to the noxious trades carried on in that parish on the banks of the Thames, which affected the atmosphere in the neighbourhood :of the Houses of Parliament ? Sir B. HALL said that the matter was one for serious c onsideration, in consequence of the course the Vestry of Lambeth had thought it right to pursue in reference to this subject. To show the house what a hopeless case it was of any remedy being adopted by the parish autho rities, he read a letter sent from the officer of works, on the 30th July, to the Vestry of Lambeth, complaining of the nuisance, and the answer he had received from that body, dated 10th August. The latter stated that the subject was submitted to a meeting of the vestry held on the 6'l inst., but they were not prepared to take legal proceedings against the parties. The house would there fore see ho w unfortunate it was that the bill of 1855 was passed without a clause imposing a penalty on parish a uthorities for neglect of their duties. If such a clause had been introduced into that act any person could have proceeded against a local body that neglected to do its duty towards the public and themselves. It was too late this session to introduce a bill to remedy that defect, but he hoped next session the house would pass a bill that would compel parish authorities to txe cute the powers vested in them under the powers of the act of 1856. The subject then dropped. DIVORCE AND MATRINIONIAL CAUSES BILL. The committee on this bill was resumed. On clause 25, giving divorce for cruelty and desertion , Lord J. MANNERS moved the introduction of the words "or adultery committed within the conjugal re- sidence." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend ment, oa the ground that the bill was only to consolidate and not make any change in the present law. Mr GLADSTONE said that the learned Attorney- General appeared by his remarks to be wrong, both in fact and principle, with reference to the effect of this bill. The further they advanced in its discussion the more obvious it became that that house should subject the measure to a greater examination and scrutiny than it bad been subjected to in the House of Lords or by her Majesty's Government, who were responsible for its pro auction. The change which this bill proposed in the law was patent, and when the Attorney-General steeed the contrary it only showed the crudity and precipitancy with which the bill had - been introduced, and the scarcely decent haste it had been determined on and was attempted to be forced through the house. If divorce was to be given to the poor for cruelty, the same power should be given to the rich in the shape proposed by the amend ment, because there could be no greater cruelty inflicted on a woman than to know that her husband was living in adulterous intercourse in the conjugal residence. There was no such cruelty in the higher classes as was known in the lower classes, but the scandal attaching to the fact of a man in the higher classes outraging his wiee's feelings by converting hue house into a scene of infamy, whilst observing all the external demands of society, was the greatest cruelty that could be inflicted on a woman. It should be the object of this bill to meet such cases. Mr. DRUMMOND supported the amendment. He contended that the woman and man should be put on an equality in the process of obtaining divorce ; and the man who turned his house into a brothel, ought not to go scatheless. Mr. 13.UGGESSEN also supported the amendment. He said that woman sinned from her weakness—man from the strength of his passions. If, therefore, the latter was entitled to relief, the first was more so. The ainendineet grappled with great social evil, and believing the amendment would tend to remedy it, he should vote against the government, although he had supported the second reading of the bill. Mr. AYRTON said that as the committee were con sidering the law of divorce with a view to its amend ment, it was their duty to consider everything in re ference to it, and take care that the principle they laid down was such as would promote morality and give relief to the greatest and grossest form of injustice. (Hear, hear.) Where a man brought home a concu bine, the wife ought to have power to sue for a divorce. Mr. HENLEY spoke in favour of the amendment, urging that the woman had equal rights with the man. 'file LOUD ADVOCATE said that the la w of Scotland, with reference to divorce, proceeded on the principle that the two sexes were on a footing of equal- ity—(hear, hear)—and he thought it well-founded both on principle and social experience. (Hear, hear.) The wife used the remedy as two to five, provino clearly that the remedy was not tx , ,ravagantly made use of. The law was applicable to the whole of Scat land, and from a return be bad had made, he found that out of 175 ca , :eg, 73 only were at the suit of the wile, and about 103 or 104 at the suit of the husband, which he thought was not a large amount, in a popula tion of 3,000,000. During the last year there were 17 cases of divorce in Scotland, seven of which were at the suit of the wife, and the remainder at that of the husband. He entirely concurred in the amendment, believing it ought to be the principle on which divorce should proceed. Lord J. MANNERS addressed the committee at con siderable length in support of his amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the bill was confided to him on toe principle which he distinctly again stated, that of embodying the (xieting law in regard to divorce. It was true two yams desertion and cruelty did now give a claim to divorce, but with that exoeption his statement was substantially true, and he cnnplained of the language that had been used against him in reference to the hill. The amend , meet would be most apposite if the committee were dis cussing the foundation of the marriage law, but that was not the case, and on the terms on which the bull had been committed to his care he could net enter on the larger question. He approved of the equality contended for, but the committee was limited to the embodying of the present law. (Hear, hear.) Leeielation need not stop with this bill, but be pro ceeded with in a future session of Parliamen.. (Cheers.) He replied to the censures that had been passed upon him by those who appeared to have sudderly awakened to the woman's wrongs , . He asked how the country could place any faith in those who on the second reading of this bill opposed the dissolubility ef marriage, but were now the hollow advocates of the enlargement of the 1 sw of divorce by introducing other crimes for a divorce a vincuio. The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to what he termed the gilded propositions of hon. members, in which no one could could believe they were sincere. Mr. GLADSTONE said that the remarks of the right hon. and learned gentleman would not deter him from doing his duty in regard to this measure, which was now beginning to show it was not a fit sub ject for discussion in that house. He complained of the r: marks of the Attorney-General in reference to the sincerity of hon. members, and said that that learned gentleman very neatly, if he had not in fact, crossed the line, when he ought to have been called to order by the Cnairman as a disorderly member, who bad abused the liberty of speech. (Hear, and laughter,) It was not usual for one member to Challenge the sin cerity of other members in the propositions they advanced. The statement of the Attorney-General, in reference to this measure, showed that he did not appear as an inde pendent English gentleman in the debate, but the official organ of another, and that the observations he had made did not emanate in his own breast and conscience, but that they were delivered as the pure organ of a commander, who sent his command from above. The Attorney-General had, however, given tongue in refe rence to the bid, and whil=t admitting the equality of man and woman, he was determined to precipitately pass a measure that would place women in an inferior and unjust position. Lord PALMERSTON defended the conduct of the Attorney-General, and said that if those who voted against the second reading of the bill new voted for the amendment, they would be making, in effect, a recantation of their previously expressed opinion of the indissolubility of marriage. (Cries of " No, no.") He however, repeated the assertion, and proceeded to say that ho was opposed to the equality of man and woman, in reference to divorce, from a be lief that there was a difference in the nature of the social offence of adultery. He opposed the amendment from a belief that it would give rise to opportunity of collusion between the parties, and much assist the husband and wife who wished to get rid of each other by a legal process, more easy under the amendment than the bill as it now stood. lie agreed with the Attorney-General that it would be better to pass the bill as it at present stood, but being anxious to pass the bill he would not press the question to a division, but give way, protesting however against his giving way being made a precedent in more objectionable cases. Alter some remarks from Mr. HENLEY, remarking that the Government had given way in two points, that of th e C oun t y Court and the Roble lord's amendments. Lord J. RUSSRUSSELLsaid he was glad the noble lord (l.soiredh wasPalrn e n r e s c t e o s e. s ) ary had e raccededthe improvement pr t o o v e the e n t am o f the bill. e n dm e n wh from the difficulty vvhe likely to arise under the word n a a "de sertion." man in the higher classes brought home a mistress the wife w a s com p e l e d t o leave her home sh e would have no remedy under this bill. He considered th e taunt (' ohf d n iscuos m s n .nconsistenty against h onoura bl e members, whi c h h e and d ee honourable members thought, how e v er , o f b u t littl e weight, becaus e i had a right to which they a gree d. ought not mea sure on the pri nc i p l e support to havecall e d of v alter the details of a He thought the Government on the Attorney - General to w hich he did not agree. He understood occas ion that this was to be a permanent measaurfeo,rmanedr he regrettee l to find that in another session a questio n o f such great importance was again to be th e subject of a gitation, the same a s the " Limited Liability._ Bill of a former session. Legislation on marriage divorce shoull be conducted in a manner consonant with its gravity and importance, and should be of a permanent character. Continual legislation on this subject was likely to shake our social relations to the foundation— On the motion of Mr. TITE, the folhwing returns were ordered—Returns of the date and number of days on which the Board of Vi,itors of Lunatics, assembled between the Ist day of Jan.; 1856, and the let day of Jan. 1857, and the names of the visitors of lunatics pre sent at the board on each day of meeting; of the number of lunatics found so by inquisition ' and Lying on Jan. 1, 1856 ; similar returns on Jan. 1, 1357 ; return of the number of lunatics actually .visited by the medical visi tors between Jan. 1, 1856, and Jau. 1, 1857 ; and of the number of inquisitions which have baeu superseded in the years 1854, 1855, and 1856. AUSTRALIAN COLONIES. - - - On the motion of Mr. MACARTNEY the following returns were ordered:—Returns of the names, tonnage, and horse-power of all vesseli surveyed by the Admiralty the property of the European and Columbian Steam and to be employed between Suez and Melbourne under the provisions of a contract entered into by virtue of a tender signed on behalf of the said company, the 11th day of June, 1856, by J. Orr E wing, chairman, with the sur veyor's report thereon ; and of the ❑ames, tonnage, and hose•power of all vessels chartered or hired by the said company (with the names of owners), to c mvey the mails and passengers between Alt zindria and Southamp ton, or Suez and Melbourne. Ile inquired of th© Sec retary of State for the Colonies whether any complaints have been received from the Australian c lorries (by either of the two last mails) of the irregular and unsa tisfactory mariner i❑ which the postal services has been performed between SUEZ and Melbourne since January last ; a-d, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay the same on the table of the house / Mr. LABOUCHERE had no objection. FUEL TO TRANSPORTS. divorce. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered that some inconvenience would arise if this suggestion were agreed to, if the person committing the crime of bigamy were to continue to reside in a foreige country. Mr. NAPIER said that in such a case it would be adultery with desertion, and the case would come un der other provisions of the bill. Mr. MA LINS said that if the statement of the At torney-General, that the proposed court would not try the crime of bigamy, but would direct it to be tried by another court, were correct, then the only course t r be adopted in case of a woman petitioning for divorce on the ground of bigamy, would be the production to the court of the record of the conviction by a court compe tent to try a felony of that description. Mr. BUTT contended that it was perfectly competent for any common law court to try cases of felony, and instanced actions of libel or hills of exchange where the defence raised the question of forgery, or an action of a policy of insurance when the defence charged arson against the plaintiff. In such cases the courts never suspended the proceeding., as was suggested by the At torney-General the proposed court should do, while a criminal court tried the question of felony. It was ne cessary in this clause to define the meaning of the word " bigamy," making it to apply to a man who married another woman during the life time of his wife, and ren dering necessary in order to obtaining divorce by the w if e on eac h grounds, that the record of the conviction of such offence by a criminal court should be produced to the Court of Divorce. Mr. M'MAHON concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned member for Youghal. Mr. GLADSTONE wished to hav e an explanation of the word " bigamy." Mr. BUTT said that the word " bigamy" had been introduced in the bill iu a previous chase. It was, as it stood, nothing short of stark staring nonsense. He proposed, therefore, to add, after " bigamy," the words " by feloniously intermarrying with any other woman." Mr. WM ANON considered the words unnecessary, as the only species of bigamy for which a conviction could be obtained was of that description contemplated by the bill. After some further discussion, Tile ATTORNEY-GENERA said be had no objet time to the introduction of the - words proposed, as they were perfectly harmless, and perfectly unnecessary. The committee was then about to divide on the pre vious wriendment of the Attorney-General that the words " with adultery," be introduced into the clause after the word " big.my," but the amendment was agreed to without a division. Mr. GLADSTONE moved the addition of the words, " or of rape." ' The words were added. Mr. WIGRA.M proposed to add the words "such bigamy, or other offences, be proved by a conviction." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the introduc tion of the words. It would turn a great hardship on the wife, and possib!y might prevent her obtaining a just divorce. Mr. GLADSTONE argued that they were not in a position to discuss the question in all its bearings, as there was not time. The limitation of the clause, as it at present stood, would lead to collisions where a hus band and wife wanted to get rid of each other. Mr. WIG RAM said so serious a question as dissolu tion of marriage ought not to be decided without a cri i mital connexion. After a short conversation the committee divided— For the amendment Against it Majority against the amendment 35 Mr. COLLINS proposed to add the words " or of murder or manslaughter coupled with adultery." The amendment was negatived. so M as r. to D m ß a U tt eMcMruoeNltyD i proposed b u t s h b e insertion of a nd ground wo rd for s di vorce. He read the details of many cases of cruelty which had come under his own observation. The first was that of a young lady who married the heir to a large fortune. A few months after the marriage that gentleman had three mistresses living in three different houses. With one or ether of those he usually supped, and came borne drunk. His servant undressed him and carried him to his wife's bed. She wished to sleep in another room, but he told her that if she did he would bring one of his mistresses home. When his sons were 14 years of age he took them to mistresses, and after he had been married 20 years he died. That was but one case. He proposed that cruelty alone should be the ground for divorce. Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment, as introdu cing an entirely new principle. Mr. GLADSTONE contended that they ought to ifound their proceedings in the matter on a wider founda tion. Their experience was limited where their views should be enlarged. After a few words from Mr. BUXTON, the amend. meet was negatived. Mr. STAFFORD asked the First Lord of the Admi ralty what steps have been taken by her Mvje.4ty's Go vernment or the proper authorities, with reference to toe steam transports that have already sailed, or are about to sail, with .troops or stores for India, so as to secure for them an adequa.'e supply of fuel for the voy age ; and what arrangements have been made for such supply at the Cape de .Verde, Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, or other coaling stations en route ? Mr. BARING said the owners of the transports bad contracted for the supply of fuel. The supply of fuel at thu stations named was ample. THE APPROPRIATION ACT. Mr. WILSON brought up this b 11, which was read a fir,t time, a❑d ordered to be read a second time tomor row (this day). DIVORCE BILL. Lord J. MANNERS inuired what was the course intended to be taken to-morrow with regard to this bill, as the Attorney-General would have to be present in the House of Lords in the Shrewsbury case. Tne ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he intended to apply to the House of Lords to postpone the else in which he was engaged. Lord J. MANNERS inquired what course would be taken in case tie House of Lords shoull not accede to the request I Lora PALMERSTON—AII I can say is, then as then, as the French say. Mr. GLADSTONE then moved the adjournment of the house in order to enable him to address himself to the inconvenience of members being called down to the house without knowing what course was to be taken, After some converswion, Lord PALMERSTON said the Government were de termined to go on with the bill, whether the Attorney- General were present or not. The motion was then withdrawn, and the house went into committee on the bill. The discussion was resumed with regard to the words in reference to adultery and bigamiy. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now proposed that the wor.!s should 1):: bigamy with alul:ery. Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know what the inten tion of the. House of Lords was in passing this clause. Mr. PULLER thought it rather hard to call upon the Attorney-General to give such intentions. All that house had to do was to consider how they would pass the clause. Mr. HENLEY thought the words proposed by the Attorney-General were an improvement. Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know whether it was intended to propose to give the wife a title to divorce in the case of bigamy with adultery, whether the adultery and the bigamy were with the same persona or with different persons. Lord J. RUSSELL was unwilling to restrict the cases wherein a wife could obtain the redress of divorce. Would the words proposed give the wife the same re medy which might be at present obtained by a private bill in the House of Lords 1 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said they would. Mr. NAPIER said he thought that other offences as well as bigamy ought to be included. Suppose a man committed a rape as well as adultery, surely such a case as this ought to come under this bill, and ought to be provided for. Lord J. MANNERS asked the Attorney-General if it was the intention of the Government by this clause to leave a woman to come to Parliament, as now, for relief in cases where the husband had been:transp?rted for a felony subsequent to the bigamy, because such a separation, in his opinion, amounted to desertion. S , r D. NORREYS referred to the difference of opinion that appeared to txlst between the Attorney-General ar.d the noble lord at the head of the Government on this point, which showed an evident desire of the latter to throw the former overboard. (Laughter) He (Sir D. Norreyo thought it mattered little whether the bigamy was consummated or not, for by a man's committing bigamy he violated his marriage vow, and equally in flicted injury on his wife. The right hon. baronetsa'd that a man might almost, without vicious intentions, commit a rape. (Laughter.) He meant that circum stances might level a man into the crime without know ing teoimgami mytt it—(Renewed mae laughter)—which was different to the committal of bigamy, and bore no similarity to it. , all s l tl thebe a . ff premeditated coulda ct , b e andpo possible b i l t e a underman the marriage tie against his wile. Mr. GLADSTONE said there could not be a clearer propf of the want of unanimity of opinion, and the extra- PH E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 14, 1857 Mr. HENLEY desired to have some exploration of what was meant by the term d,sertion. After a few remarks from Lord J. MANNERS, Mr. HENLEY tnov.d the omissiol of the word 44 de,,ertiop." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should have thought the right lion. gentleman had had practical ex peritnce on the subject of desertion as a justice of the peace to know the defloiLion of the word " desertion." The word " desertion" in the bill was sufficiently under stood. It was applied to where a man left his wife altogether, and not merely ceasing to cohabit with her. It would not apply to constrained absence under crim nal sentence. Lord LOYAINE asked if it would apply to transpor tation for seven years or more ? It was a common oc currence with the lower classes, when a man was trans ported for 7 years, for the wife to remarry if his absence extend over that period. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the case referred to had reference to a rule of evidence, and not law, on the supposition that a woman not hearing of he husband for seven years, that he was dead. It would not apply to desertion under this bill. Two years' voluntary ab sence was a sufficient desertion on the part of the hus band for the wife to claim a divorce. Mr. HENLEY asked if a man lived with his wife in one square in London, and left her to reside in another with a mistress, returning to his wife occasionally, if that would be desertion under the bill ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —Certainly not. Mr. AYRTON said that leaving a wife chargeable was desertion under the common law, but that test being removed innumerable difficulties would arise. Sup posing a man to leave his wife and go to Paris for two years and commit adultery, having provided her with the means of living, was that desertion ? Supposing that to be cleared up, a greater difficulty arose by the differ e co between a man deserting his wife for two years with or without adultery. Another was of a man who went to gaol and there committed adultery. Mr. GLADSTONE said they appeared to be in diffi culty with this clause. The definition of desertion was absence without reason. How could it be deserticn with a reasonable excuse? The two things did not stand well together. He. was doubtful, admitting the principle of the clause to be good, that it would attain the object they had in view. Supposing a man kept up an estab lishment for his wife at his residence, and resided with his mistress in another, and never went to his mansion, would that constitute desertion ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No. Mr. GLADSTONE—That was at variance with the Attorney-General's definition, and the question aeain arose what constituted desertion. Multitudes of cases might arise under this clause that had not occurred to their minds, and it was difficult to understand the appli cation of a novel enactment to such cases. A sailor might be abroad with legitimate cause for more than two years, but bow was a wife to prove that. He was anxi ous to know the form and procedure with regard to proofs in such cases, and on whom the burden rested. Mr. LYGON referred the Attorney-General to the definition of desertion under the code of Holland. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that desertion must depend on the animus of a prisoner. The essence of crime rested on the intention of a person to commit an offence. Mr. CLAY complained that the discussion was mere hair splitting. N) man of common sense could for a mo ment doubt what was or was not desertion under the provisions of this tell. Lord J. MANNERS urged the injustice that would be inflicted under the clause as it present stood. Sir D. NORREYS said that where a man lived, as put by the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford shire, it should be considered desertion on the part of the husband, Aft. r some remarks from Lord LoVAINE and Sir W. HEATTIO,TD, Mr. GLADSTONE said the debate appeared to show that the committee did not know the real meaning of the words they were called upon to adopt. He complained of important measures being pressed with precipitancy at the end of a session, which prevented their being passed with sufficient clearness and perspiceity, and the cense quence was, that they were called upon in a subsequent session to remedy their defects. After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY, The amendment was withdrawn. Sir D. NORREYS proposed to strike out " two years and upwards," giving to the Court the power of deciding what was desertion. The ATTORNEY GENERAL supported the reten tion. It was important some term should be specified in the bill. The amendment was negatived without a division. Mr. Burr moved, as an amendment, to insert the fol lowing words in the clause—"or of adultery, coupled with aggravated ill-treatment of such a nature as Ought, in the opi❑ion of the court, to entitle her to such cli vorce." The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to argue that there should be an equality betweea men and women so far as regarded facilities of divorce. He would leave the new court the same discretion that would be committed to the House of Lords in its judi cial capacity. He did not see how this could be avoided, unless they said that in no case the wife should have re dress. Mr. LYGON suggested that the amendment should stand—" or of adultery coupled with aggravating cir cumstances." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was only introducing a new ground for divorce on the part of the wife. lie thought if they were prepared to arrive at the conclusion at which the amendment aimed they should have done it ling ago. He was not prepared to arrive at that conclusion, and he should therefore resist the amendment. Sir W. HEATLICOTE considered that notwithstand iog the vote arrived at on a previous evening they had a perfect right to give a woman as much protection as possible in reference to divorce. It was, ho thought, reasonable to give to the Court the full liberty of action which was contemplated by the amendment. Mr. M ALI?..TS concurred with the Attorney-General in resisting the amendment, which ought to have been proposed at a much earlier stage of the bill. He thought it would give the Court too wide a discretion, especially as it had been decided by the house on a previous even ing, that there was to be a difference between the man and the woman. Mr. NEWDEGATE considered the bill a most cow ardly one, as the principle of our law was to aid the weak as well as the strong. The house was evidently doubtful whether the terms by which the claims of the woman were restricted had been sufficiently defined. Mr. NAPIER thought it would be right to specify the powers of the judge, otherwise everything would depend upon his caprice at the time. Mr. LYGON withdrew his amendment, and the com mittee divided on that of Mr. Butt. The numbers were— Fur the amendment Against it Majority Mr. COX suggested that the chairman should report progress at this stage. Some discussion ensued upon the motion, and ulti mately Lord PALMERSTON congratulated the members who opposed the bill on the success with which for ten hoots they had exercised their ingenuity on three lines of a single clause of the bill, and announced the inten tion of the Government to sit de.y by day and night by night until the bill was gone through. Out of conside ration to the Attorney-General, who had some heavy professional duties to attend to, and not nut of deference to the house, he ,would consent to the adjournment of the debate. Mr. GLADSTONE complained of the conduct of the noble lord, which was altogether unprecedented in the conduct of the leader of that house, and who had eman cipated himself from the rules of common courtesy due to hon. members. Lord PALMERSTON denied that his conduct and remarks were open to the strictures which the right hon. member had placed upon them. As leader of the house, he would have been perfectly just.fied in endeavouring to force the how) to pass the remaining three lines of the clause to which no amendment was to be moved. After some discussion the chairman reported progress, and the house resumed. JUDGMENTS BILL. Mr. FITZ3ERALD moved the seecond reading of this bill, which was read accordingly, and ordered to be committed. PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the order for going into committee on this bill was discharged. The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a new bill on the subject. Motion agreed to, and bill introduced accordingly. FRAUDULENT TRUSTEES BILL. The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered, and agreed to. The Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance Bill was read a second time. The Smoke Nuisance (Sco'land) Abatement Bill was read a third time and passed. The Crowded Dwellings Prevention Bill passed through committee. THE PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMI NISTRATION (ERELA.ND) BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. After some discussion on the clauses, the bill passed through committee. REVISING BARRISTERS (DUBLIN) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. MILITIA PAY BILL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed this day. The house adjourned at a quarter to 3 o'clock. REPORT ON PATENTS.—The number of applications for provisional protection in 1856 (recorded) was 3,10 G ; the number of patents passed, 2,094 ; the number of specifications filed in pursuance thereof, 2,043 ; and the number of applications lapsed or forfeited, 1,012. The number of applications recorded within the first six months of this year is 1,830, so that an increase of 6UO on the whole year may be expected. The expenses of the office of the constnisbioneis for 1856 amounted to 5,8501., and the amount of stamp duties paid on passing patents was 91,1151. A report on the affairs of Messrs. Carr, Brothers, and Co., of Newcastle, was submitted yesterday to the principal creditors by Mr Coleman, the accountant. It appears that the debts of the firm amount to 700,0001., and that Mr. Coleman considers the assets will yield Ns:. in the pound, provided the collieries are carried on, The latter point is one of great moment not only to the creditors, but to the people of Newcastle, since the num ber of men employed on the works is upwards of 2,000. On the whole, a favourable view was takers of the case, and there seems to be a general disposition to concur in the requisite arrangements to avert the consequences hat wont' ensue from a permanent stoppage. A MISSIONARY IN EP. PRISONS. 'AULETTES. REPORTS (From the Times.) Ou the 29th of March last a mutiny broke out in the 34th Regiment of Native Infantry at Barrac:k pore. A S,poy, by name Mungul Pandy, rushed into the parade-ground, shouting out, "Come out, men ! come out, men !—you have sent me out, why don't you follow me ?" He went on calling upon the men "to turn out, as they would have to bite the cartridges," shouting, " Come out, Sepoys ! come out for your religion 1" and telling the bugler "to sound the asetubly." He carried a loaded musket, and appeared ready to fire on anybody who approached him. This went on about a hun dred yards from the quarter-guard, who saw and heard him. The native officer in command of this guard allowed him to go on, and remained a sullen. spectator. The man levelled his musket, and wounded. Sergeant-Major Hewson, who imme diately called out to the officer to turn out the guard and seize him. But the officer made ex cuses, gave no orders, and the guard did not stir. The man then fired at Lieutenant Baugh, who ap- preached to seize hith, and the Lieutenant's horse fell. Sergeant Hewson then rushed on the muti neer with his drawn sword, but was knocked down by a blow from the butt-end of a musket behind him, the striker of which, returning with blood upon him, was simply told by the native officer "to change his pantaloons." Other Sepoys now joined, and beat the sergeant on the ground. Four of the quarter-guard wanted to seize the mutineer, but the native officer kept them back, saying, " if you kill the man you will be hung." The colonel in command of the regiment then made his appear ance on the spot, and ordered the native officer to turn out his guard, which he at last did ' • but they only advanced six or eight paces, and returned, the native officer telling the colonel that none of the men would go because the mutineer was a Brahmin. Upon which the colonel, "consideringit useless, and asacrifice of life, to order aEuropean officer with the guard to seize him, I left the guard, and reported the mat er to the Brigadier." After an interval, Major-General Hearsay rode up, put himself at the head of the quarter-guard, and commanded the guard and officer to follow him. They did so, and as they approached the mutineer shot himself. The native officer was hung by order of Court-martial for connivance in the mutiny. Seven companies of the regiment were disbanded by order of the Governor-General in Council. But now follows an inquiry into the origin of the mutiny, and the conduct of another officer, and that a European one,—viz., the Colonel of the regiment,—is looked into. It appears that Colonel Wheler had, besides the military charge which his country gave him, invested himself with another office—viz., that of a Christian missionary. He is questioned on the subject by the Governor and Council, and he answers with perfect frankness— " During the last 20 years, I have been in the habit of speaking to natives of .all classes, Sepoys and others, making no distinction, since there is no respect of persons with God, on the subject of our religion, in the highways, cities, bazaars, and villages (not in the lines and regimental bazaars). I have done this from a conviction that every converted Christian is expected or rather com manded by the Scriptures to make known the glad tidings of salvation to his lost fellow-crea tures." He is then asked whether the Sepoys he has tried to convert include his own Sepoys ; and he replies quite openly, that " he acts on the broad line which Scripture enforces, which is to speak without reserve to every person, and has no doubt, —indeed, is quite certain—he has often in this way addressed Sepoys of his own regiment." The Colonel then lays down what he considers to be Gospel doctrine, which is very much what would be found in one of Mr. Simeon s skeleton sermons. He speaks of himself, too, as a preacher, for he talks of the natives "whom he has addressed, whether individually or collectively." In short, he describes himself as a Christian missionary, and he moreover thinks that every " convened Christian" ought to be a missionary, and try to convert the heathen, and that is the principal thing which ho ought to think about. In " temporal matters" he is ready to obey " the orders of his earthly superior, but in spiritual things he must obey his Heavenly superior." He expects to " suffer persecution" for this view of duty, and to "be brought before rulers and kings," but, as that is the lot of all true Christians, he rejoices in it. He even " takes shame to himself for having mani fested such coldness in his Master's coldness." Now, we have not the slightest objection to Colonels of Regiments being religious men, but the question is—is a Colonel of a Regiment a mission ary ? Is that his office ? We do not think it is. Colonel Wheler. takes it for granted that every Christian in India is cotnmanded by the Bible to preach the Gospel to the natives, and that if he does not do th-s he disobeys Goi and perils his own salvation. That is what his letter comes to—every body is a missionary. It is not an office which seine Christians have and others have not, an office which Christian communities give to particular per sons ' • but it is an office which belongs to every Christian as such. But this has never been the teaching of any Christian communion we know of. Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Inde pendents, all consider the missionary office as one to which the individual is appointed by the reli gious society to which he belongs. Indeed, it stands to reason that a person who undertakes such an important office, and one which so deeply involves the interests of Christianity, should be in some re sponsible connexion with a Christian community. Apart from political caution or care for our Ind an Empire, it is not for the interests of Christianity itself, we say, that anybody who chooses shoull consider himself a preacher of the Gospel to the heathen. The Christian community is missionary, but that is quite a different thing from saying that every individual in it ought to be, still leis that he is bound to be, a missionary. The community is missionary by representation—it deputes the task to particular persons. So much for the Colonel's argument, that because he is a Christian he is obliged to be a missionary, and to preach to every native he sees. But there is another consideration. A Colonel of a Regiment is not in a position, according to our compact with India, to be a missionary. We must respect rights, and not attempt to be religious at the cost of plain justice. We tell the Hindoos that as a Government we do not interfere in the least with their religion, and that is the tenure on which we hold India. But it is practically quite inconsistent with such an argument as this that persons holding high- official appointments, and having command over bodies of natives, should turn missionaries. It may be said that you must distinguish between the missionary and the Colonel, or the General or the magistrate ; but, practically speaking, sush a per son does use his official position as a means of reli gious influence, and the purpose of conversion. He. cannot help it. If he is a Colonel or a General he must teach or preach, and argue with the benefit of that official weight attaching to him, and his Sepoys will naturally suppose that his official power will be felt favonrahly or unfavourably by them T. i; may possibly be the case, and he may I el - ) according as they comply with his persuasion or not. in fact, make any difference ; but that will natur ally be their idea, and, if it is, they hive a right to complain, because the apprehension and suspicion of such a thing is in itself an evil. The combina tion of the two functions is a source of alarm to them. They do not know whether the Colonel will not " spite" them for their assistance to the preacher. The union of the two offices, then,. is contrary to our fundamental compact with the natives. We beg to be understood as saying nothing what ever against the work of the legitimate and appointed missionary in India. We do not t Wok t hat his offi re leads to any misunderstanding or complaint on the part of the natives ; and, if it did, as a Christian country we must take the risk of it. But the dis tinction is as plain as it is just. If a Colonel of a regiment thinks he has a decided call for the mis sionary life, by ail means let him obey it, but do not let him hold his colonelcy. Had Colonel Wheler twenty years ago left the army and devoted himself to the work of converting the natives no body could have said a word against him, because a man has certainly a right to select the employment for which he thinks himself most fitted ; but he had no right to be missionary and colonel•too—to as sume the preacher's office and still retain the mili tary one. It is impolsible to say what mischief such a confused and fanatical idea of duty as he has shown has done. Here is a mutiny which, if not the first, is among the first mutinies. The 34th Regiment is known to have inoculated other regi ments. This is stated in the minutes of the Indian Council. Who can tell, then, how much this one d man's froward and impertinent zeal h as done, how much it may have contributed to the whole outbreak? MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT. —On Monday, as the Im perial ya•At La Reines Hortense was passing the Royal Victoria Yacht Chub Ryde, on its departure to Havre with its Imperial fr.-ight, a salute was fired from the battery of the club. From some defect in sponging the piece, a portion ot fire was left in the bore, and on the introduction of the following cartridge an explosion took place, shattering the right arm of the gunner in such a manner that amputation at the shoulder was sabstquently considered necessary. The signalman of the club had the thumb of his left hand over the vent, and the limb was blown partly off by the expbsion. The name of the gunner is Jacob Harbour, and that of the signalman Edward Petty. A sum of 701. has been already subscribed for the sufferer Harbour ; and at a meeting ot the committee on Tuesday night it eras re solved to appropriate 25/. from the funds of the club for the same purpose. A thick blue-book contains the rep , rt 3 of the inspeaors of various convict prisons. The most _ _ interesting of these is that which refels to Penton vale. It appears that one of the prisoners stabbed his officer Ns ith a shoe-knife, and that 522.offences were reported, of which 41 were dismissed. Of 1,054 prisoners confined last year 809 were not punished at all, a satisfact3ry proof that the gene ral conduct of the prisoners was good. Two pri soners e4caped, it is supposed through the assist ance of an officer, who was dismis3el in conse quence. About 530 of the prisoners we're trans ferred to other prisons during the year, and 558 remained at Pentonville on the 31st of December, 1856. The total expenses of the prison, exclusive of buildings, amounted to 14,6951., reducsd by sundry receipts and by the labour of prisoners to 13,3111. The deaths in the prison were at the rate of 4.2 per mille, and co attempt at suicide occurred. The system of teaching remains the same as before, and the results are satis- , factory. Phe statistics prove that mere "educa tion" is net to be received either as a panacea or preventive of serious crime, as it is plainly a two edged sword, which cuts both ways, for evil and for good, according to the religious principles and moral habits of the possessors. In short, the greater the crime the higher will often be found the degree of education. The degree of education is higher in convicts (reports the chaplain) than in ordinary criminals. Experience shows that of 1,000 convicts released from this prison 200 will relapse into crime, with less success than before ; 3CO will abandon crime as a bad speculation, and. because their skill in thieving is pretty well lost ; 400 will bona fide, and from principle and choice, adopt a good course of life, and become useful members of socie'y ; and 100 will break down into permanent invalids, and end their days in a workhouse. Taking 1,000 prisoners sentenced to transportation for life, it is calculated that 113 can neither read nor write, 135 can read a little, 291 can both read and write imperfectly, 380 can read well, and 81 are of su perior education. Of another 1,000 prisoners, about 15 or 16 appear to have been liberally educated and emplo,yed, 40 to 52 to have been clerks, shopmeu, and bagmen, 26 to 71 servants, and 317 to 388 tradesmen and mechanics. The report on Milbank prison shows that 2,765 prisoners were disposed of last year, 832 remaining et the close thereof. The (reduced) expenses of the prison amounted to 29,6751. 'Of 2,259 convicts whose educational status is recorded, only 243 were totally ignorant. At Parkhurst prison 638 prisoners were disposed of last year, and the cost was 11,1401, At Portland, 2,387 prisoners were disposed of, and the expense amounted to 52,161 i. The conduct of the prisoners as a body, has been good, and they are more patient under labour. At Portsmouth, 1,636 prisoners were disposed of, and the expense was 31,0351. At Dartmoor, 1,517 prisoners were disposed of, and the expense was, 34,4541. Lastly, at Chatham prison, 677 prisoners were disposed of, and the expense amounted to 36,3501. Country lYlarketz,,. MANCHESTER—Aua. 13. At this day's market there was a fair atten lance, and a moderate amount of business was transacted in wheat and flour at the extreme currency of last week. Oats and oatmeal were both inquired for, and the former improved in value id per 451bs. Beans same as last week. Indian corn is per qr. cheaper. There has boon a continuance of heavy rain during the week. BOSTON-Au a. 12. We have again to report an extremely dull market, and a small supply of wheat ; the few sales effected must be noted at about last week's rates. In oats and beans uo change. Prices :—Wheat, red, 50s Od to 61s Od; new, —s to —s ; white, 60i 01 to 63s 01; extra, 655. Barley, 403 01 to 47s Od. Oats 25s to 31s. Peas, 40 to 44s Od. Beans, 470 Od to 50s Od per qr. NEWARK-AuG. 12. A thin attendance and a middling supply of wheat. Little business doing, at about last week's rates. Wheat, white 63s to 665, red 60s to 635; barley, malting --s to ---s, grinding 35s to 365; oats, 24st. 36s to 383, 22st, 32s to Us ; beans, 43s to 52s ; malt, 73s to 80s ; peas, 46s to 43s ; tares, —s to --s per qr. New white wheat 67s to 703; new red, 64s to 665. LOUTil—Aura. 12. Our market continues much depressed, and the trifling business done in corn was at about the rates of the pre vious week. Wheat, 55s to 59s ; extra, 63s ; barley 413 to 445; oats 24s to 283; beans, 44s to 48s. EDIN BURGH GRAIN.-ATM. 5. Sales wore heavy, and prices for wheat and oats firmer. Barley back and beans dearer. Wheat, on the top, is Od down, and on the avenge was Os Od up. Barley, 3s down on the top, and is lid down on the average. Oats on the top is 01 up, and on the average ld up. Beans on the top 2s Od down, and ou the average is 6d up. - AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. Wheat £2 6 0 4-12ths. Do. new -12th. Barley Oats 1 12 4 6-12ths. Beans -12ths. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat 2063 qrs sold 1566 qrs Barley 268 qrs sold 165 qrs Oats 687 qrs sold 490 gra Beans 77 qrs sold 30 qrs DERBY SMITHFIELD.-AuG. 11. There was a moderate supply of fat beasts today, and a full attendance of buyers; the greater part of the animals were of the better sort, and mostly disposed of. The supply of sheep was a full average; with a flat der wand. The supply of lambs was large, and several lots unsold. A larga supply of fat pigs and sales flat; towards the close, however, a clearance was effected. Calves not so numerous, and better sold. The following were the quotations :—Beef, 43 to 71: mutton, 7d to 7id ; lamb, 8d to tO ; veal, 61 tc p n e r , lb. ; pigs, 10s Od to I.os 6d per score; rough fat, 5s 9 to y; per 141 b.; hides, 44d to 6,d per lb ; calf-skins, 41c1 6§' per lb. LOCAL SHARE MARKET& LIVERPOOL, AUG. 13. STOOK EXCHANGE.—The transactions in this inark 4 to-day are merely nominal, the market continues dull, and prices of all the leading stocks have again declined, under the influence of the Indian advices. C•iledonian, London and North-Westerns, 1021 2 * A 2—Lancashire and Yorkshire, 98k —South Eastern, 21f —Blackburn, 74 c.—Great Western of Canada, 21 3 —Grand Trunk of Canada, 12.16.3. / —Midlands, 831—Eastern Conn ties, 11.1.3.—Great Western, - 52 i 51 —North Eastern, Berwick, 23k—Chester and Holyhead, 17i---Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln, 89 BIRMINGHAM, AUG. 13 STOCK ExcHANGE. —The market was rather heavy to: day. There was not much imp rovemen t i n pr i ces , a nd the business nominal. LEEDS, AUG. 13. STOOK EXCHANGE.--The market inactive, and price B without any material change. Leeds, 981—Sheffields; 381. MANCHESTER, AUG. 13. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market was inactive to-dsl' and prices were a shade lower. Midlands, 835—Leeds , 98i--London and North We3terns, 102 —Sheffields, :38i —Dovers, 21 11-16 —Leeds new, 7-16 d - -Grea t Western, 52—Grand Trunk of Canadl, 12 1:3-16—Blackburna, East Lancashire, 96—Great Western of Canada, 21-' Eastern Counties, 10 15-16 d. RAILWAY ACTS.—It appears that in the session of 1856 acts were passed authorising the construction of 358 miles of railway, and the raisivg of capital to the amount of 3,648,0001., and l)ans to the amount of 2,141,4261., making a total of 5,784,4261. ; 39 miles of railway were afterwards abandoned, and the net total increase of capital, after reductions made, amount to 2,782,379. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 12th inst , at 10, Mansfield-street, Portland' place, Mrs. W. Bovill. On the 13th inst., at 36 , Sussex-gardens, Hyde-park, the wife of George Lewis Parkin, Esq. OF A DACOLITER., On the 12th inst., the wife of Freeman H aynes, E s q barrister-at - law. On the 12th inst., at 41, Eaton-place, Belgrave-square , the wife of John Harvey Astell E sq . MARR I ED. On the 12th inst., at In,qestre Stafford the Most Nobl e the Marquis of Lothian, with the Lady Constance Talbot, daughter of the Right Hon. Earl Talbot. On the 12th inst., at St. Marylebone pariah church, sl• B. Greig, Esq., Parliamentary solicitor, London, second son of James Greig, Esq., of Eccle. Berwickshire, to Mary Jane, th e eldest daughter of William Grant, Esq Maueira. DIED On the 13th inst., at the Lodge, Witham, Essex, frail the eff ec t s o f a fall at Diminow, a few days previously' , William Wright Luard, Esq., Deputy-Lieut. and J.P. for the county of Essex, aged 71. On the 13th inst., at Greenwich, Mr. no. Taylor Major, aged 85. On the 12th inst., after three hours' illness, at lichen, Stoke Vicarage, the Very Rev. D. W. Conybeare, Dean of Landaff, aged 71. On the 12th inst., at 171, Bermondsey-street, Mr. T. J Bundey, aged 40. On the 11th lost., at the Grange, Oakham, Clarke Mor ris, Esq., late High Sheriff of the county of Rutland , aged 61. On the 7th inst., Sir John Augustus Hugh Boyd, V" R.N., of Drumawillen, .13411yeastle, county Antrim, IN" land, aged 38. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO Y OUNG' of No, 112, Strand, Printer, at Me Sun Offic3, Se• 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the couatY of Middlesex, Friday, August 14, 1857. hts Mad NIG the 1 Lad, Bon Mat May and Perf, in th the ( 't 1 titlrtn ter,l the On Yeov on Ti On ton,l the of cegte: and 7 tenha ana or Y ( at Poi on 13; Fai Bd.th Ca] Nor° Ti ( Cross Itecei erice ~ ge . i. Pcsi 4.4 e t Rl] , .---..- vote,. tniie, certa NW; phi elism torw bad 1143 n