The Sun. — London, England, 1857-07-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the wool• sack at five o'clock. Lord COLVILLE presented a petition from a place in Fife against the Lunacy (Scotland) Bill. Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from Ellesmere in Litchfield, against the Divorce Bill. INDIA. Lord ELLENBOBOUGH reminded the noble earl that when he read some days ago the des patches connected with India, he said that if the papers furnished to their lordships were not considered sufficient the Government would grant others. Now there was one important document which was not produced —it was the despatch issued on the 16th of May by the Governor-General, in which I attention was drawn in strong terms to the deter mination of the Government to adhere to their former practice of not interfering with the religious opinions of the natives of India. As this paper did not form a part of those produced, he shoul'l very much wish its production, and he did not think there could be any objection to its being laid on the table of the house. (Gear, hear.) He also wished to call to the recollection of his noble friend that as far back as the 28th of January, General Hearses' had communicated to the Governor-General that amongst the sepoys there was evidently an impression that they were to be forced into the profession of the Christian faith. Notwithstanding that intimation, it was not until the 27th of March that the Governor- General issued a general order upon the subject, and it was not until the 31st that it was read to the troops at Barrackpore. Although it was declared tbat the prac tics of the Government had ever been not to interfere with the religious feeling of the natives, it said nothing with respect to the future. The proclamation was not published until after the events at Meerut. The noble earl then called the attention of the house to the manner in which the Government of India was at present conducted. For example,there was astrong feeling amongst the sepoys that it wag impossible for them, consistently with their religious feelings to use the cartridges that were distri buted to them. A correspondence took place on the 27th, and 4 days elapsed before the Government at Cal cutta became acquainted with this most ominous event. Three more days elapsed before any steps were taken to remove those objections of the troops at Barrackpore. As another example of conducting Indian business, he might mention Gen. Hearsey com plained of what he considered was an improper order. and an explanation was then demanded, but eight days elapsed before such was received, although the distance was but eight miles between the respective parties. The noble earl having mentioned other instances of delay, said that it appeared to him that the government of India was not conducted by the Gover nor-General, but was administered by secretaries and clerks, and he warned her Majesty's Government that if such a course was continued before long calami ties of the most serious description would arise. Earl GRANVILLE said the Government had no ob jection to the production of the documents alluded to by the noble earl, but with regard to the criticisms on the mode of conducting business in India he confessed he had not received anything like the information which his noble friend had communi cated. But it was clear that the service of Government could not be p-rformed with greater zeal than under the direction of the present Governor General. Where the noble lord bad obtained his information to justify his observations that the Government of India was carried on by clerks he was at a loss to conceive. All he could say was that the Governor-General was acting in the most admirable manner, and was proving himself fully equal to the emergency. He bad seen a great number of letters from persons residing in India, and who were fully competent to express an opinion : without one exception they all concurred in the opinion that Lord Canning had rieen in the estimation of all the communities in India. The Duke of ARGYLL was of opinion that the noble earl opposite had greatly exaggerated the facts, and re ferred to certain documents with a view of maintaining his opinion. Lord PANMURE thought the statements of the noble earl were calculated to do much mischief in the present state of affairs. He thought that General Hear say ought to have despatched his aide-de-camp with documents of such information, and not waited for the post, he would then have acted in a proper manner. All the delay, if any had occurred, was owing to General Hearsay having waited for the post. The subject then dropped. The Reformatory Schools Bill was passed through committee after some discussion, in the Coarse of which several clauses underwent considerable modifications, and others were omitted. The following bil's were read a second time :—Boun daries of Land (Ireland) Bill ; Glebe Lands (Ireland Bill. The following bills passed throngh committee : Public Works (Irel tnd) Bill ; Turnpike Acts Continu ance Bill ; Banking Bid ; and the Industrial Schools Bill. The following bills were read a third time and pAssed —Militia Ballot _Suspension Bill ; Public Health Ac (Aldershot) Bill. The•Retormatory Institutions Bill wss withdrawn. RELIGIOUS BR AWLS (IRELAND). Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from the protestant inhabitants of the pari-h of St, Ni cholas Without in the City of Dublin, praying that they might bi protected from mob violence, that their minis ters, scripture readers, and school children might have awardtd to them the protection of the British law, and that the magistrates and the police force might be com pelled to an impartial discharge of their duty. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock. CASHEL ELECTION. The SPEAKER announced that the petition against the return of Sir T. O'Brien bad been withdrawn. ELECTION COMMITTEES. The following cemmittees were sworn at the table of the house : BEVERLEY (BOROUGH).—Mr. T. W. Evans, (Derby S ) Mr. J. H. Foley, Lieutenant-Colonel Brownlow Knox, Mr. S. B. Miller ; chairman, Mr. J. Abel Smith. SLIGO (BOROUGH).—Mr. J. W. D ld, Earl Jernayn, Mr. John Martin (Tewkesbury), Mr. J. B. Smith (St Ickport) ; chairman, Sir J. Yarde Buller. DUELIN (CITY).—Mr. Ayrton, Hon. 8.. H. Dutton, Earl of Gifford, Hon. Francis Scott ; chairman, Mr. T. E. Headlarn. Ti:e three committees will meet to-morrow (Friday) at eleveno'clock. POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL. The committee on the bill was resumed at clause 24. Clauses from 24 up to 36 inclusive were agreed to, with amerylmeuts. Clause 37 was stray.k out. The remaining clau,toa were then agree 1 to. The LORD ADVOCATE proposed a clause exempt. ing Orkr ey and Shetland from the provisions of the bill. Mr. STIRLING opposed the clause. The elauspi was, aftPr a disetissiue, withdrawn. The LORD ADVOCATE then moved the insertion of a clause to exempt police vans from turnpike toll.;, which was al-o opposed, and pressed to a division. The numbers were— For the clause Agninsltit Majority ~ -53 The clause was then added to the bill. The LORD ADVOCATE proposed a clause for regu lating the assessments to the police rate, and providing that the whole rate should be paid by the landlord. Mr. STIRLING objected to the clause, and moved a►n amendment that the rate s'aou'd be levied equally on the landlord and tenant. After a discus ion the committee divided, For the amendment Against it Majirrity -41 The clause was nltimately added to the bill. On the clause giving powers to boroughs and counties to amalgamate for the purpose of this act, Sir J. OGILVIE moved an amendment to leave nut to the end of the c:anse, and insert—" but it shall not be lawful for either party to alter or put an end to such consolidation in the manner hereinbefore provided till after the expiring of two years from the date of such consolidation." The committee divided. The numbers were— For the amendment l2 Against it Majority 67 The Clang!!! was agreed to and added to this bill. Several other clauses were added, and the bill passed through committee. The house resumed. NEW ZEALAND LOAN GUARANTEE BILL. 9 .. n, the motio n f o r th e secon d rea di ng o f th e bill, J. TItELAWNY complained that the Govern ment ~.(1 given no re:vow; to the house for guarantee ' g tb " leanof 500,0001. to New Zealand. He con sidered there and he w t z i s no sufficient security for this loan, moved six month. The excond reading of the bill this day 120,000/. for the vide of the loans were first to pay ,0001retdoemption of the colonial debt ; secondly, 200 musathe New Z.ialand Company in respect of former t towards the ex' inction or i t. c l ' i ns ' and' thirdly, 180,0001. complained of * f ights of the natives fur their lands. He corn manner in which the natives had been treated in reference y ;73 4 tatheir lands, and he gave an instance where on! referred to to the for upwards of 190,000 acres, He were to be paid !one of the for mation of the committee, who reported bill, and the witnesses examined. The said, comprised eight, members, three 0 1 77: 1 ; be whom were colonial in their feelings and disp os i t i an o s i or likely to be favourable to the colonies, whilst there were but few of them who might be considered inte rested in this subject for the sake of the public. () f l y two witnesses were examined by the committee, one the prime minister of New Zealand, and the other a gentle man connected with the Colonial-office. He thought other gentlemen ought to have been examined by the committee. The hon. baronet made other objections to the.bill, one was, that as the New Zealand government could obtain the money in this country at 8 per cent., h6r Maieitty'e Goverr ment ought n otto guaran tee th is amour , t at 4 per cent., and another that the Colonial Assembly was not unaniinou., on the loan, but adverse to the bid. There was another reason for not guaranteeing this money. The Gaierranent of New Zealand was in an unsettled state, and already had borrowed 300 000/ , which did not appear in the ev id enca taken by the' cow raitt-ze. — Mr. W. WILLIAMS Reemded - the - amen' Ott. The fact that tha G. , verunie:.it of Nov? Zealand could not obtain money in the market at less than 8 per cent., showed that their security must be bad. • Mr. LABOUCHERE said that this country should be cautious how it guaranteed money, but he thought there were cases in which it ought, and could be done safely and satisfactorily. The Govern ment bad given such securities to assist rising colonies. He entered into a detailed statement of the negotiations that had taken place between this Government and the Colonial Legislature relative to the guarantee, in the course of which he said he had informed the Colonial Government that they must not rely on Parliament as senting to his proposition. He considered the loan was required for a fair and legitimate purpose, but before submitting this bill to the house he took the precaution to obtain the appointment of a committee to investigate it He defended the committee from the attack of Sir J. Trelawny, and the right honourable gentleman read the names of the committee, which included those of Lord J. Russell, Sir J. Pakington, ex-Colonial Secretary, Mr. Henley, Mr. J. A. Smith, himself, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Wise. Mr. J. A. Smith was the only gentleman con nected with the New Zealand Company on the commit tee. He thought that in a committee of the whole house he should be able to satisfy them that the money might be safely guaranteed Unless the colony were guilty of a gross breach of faith, there was ample security for payment of capital and interest, viz., the Customs' duties of the colony and the land fund, the former of which amounted to 100,060/. a-year, and the latter to 80,0001. After re ferring to the debt of 200,0001. owing by the New Zea land Government to the New Zealand Company, he asked the house to agree to the second reading of the bill. After some remarks from Mr. GILPIN, Mr. HENLEY, one of the committee, addressed the house on the question, but his speech was cut short in consequence of its being 10 minutes to 4 o'clock. The debate wag consequently adjourned. INDIA.—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE r FIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 31 3 857 Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that this was a subject which all could meet without party feeling of any kind, and that it was one which interested every one equally and exclusively in their domestic relations. It appeared to him that this bi►l seemed to do badly, or rather not at all, what it professed to do, and it attempted to d what it hid no right to do. The hon-urable gentleman entered at great length into what he termed the hi-- torical part of the question and also its religious be axing, tl show that by the latter, marriage was considered and treated throughout the Scriptures as indissoluble, and that it was treated so in early times by the various nations of the earth. It was only to gratify the avarice of the Roman Catholic priests by the invention of dispensations that the indissolubility of marriage was first hinted at, and at last it got to such a height that the civil power interfered, and they in their turn became almost as bad. He ridiculed the conscientious feelings of the elergy, when they could he regulated by act of Parliament. He called on the house to reject the bill, as being contrary to the law of God and subversive of morality. Mr. LYC'cON opposed the bill on the ground of authority, on the ground of reason, and on the ground of experience. Toe authority of the reformatio legum went for nothing, because it was draw❑ up in the reign of Edward VI., and was rejected in the reig❑ of Queen Elizabeth, when the reformation was consolidated. Opinions were disturbed in the former reign, but in that of Elizabeth calm reason was brought to bear, and then the report of the commissioners of Edward VI. was re jected. He contended that the bill by giving divorce for adultery, would be the means of greatly increasing adultery. He implored the house to pause before it sanctioned a principle which was calculated to produce such a result. The experience of America, France, and Prussia ought to be sufficient to show the evils which were attendant upon such a principle. If they passed the bill the day would come when they would regret having laid a rude and hasty hand upon a subject which was so sacred. Mr. PULLER said there were two features in the bill which he could not support in committee ; one was the obligation upan clergymen to marry divorced per sons. Where seven. thousand clergymen said it was against their consciences to perform such marriages, it was no answer to them to say that for two hundred years past there had been cases of privilege. Consider ing that, there was a secular form of marriage which guilty parties could avail themselves of, he thought they ought not to put upon the clergy the powers of this bill. The other feature of the bill which he objected to was the power given to the judge to fine an adulterer. This was making a law for the rich, and he thought they ought to inflict such a punishment on adultery as would make it a discreditable crime. As to the indissolubitity of marriage, he should mark his opinion on that subject by giving his hearty support to the second reading of this bill. The act of adultery dissolved a marriage. Scrip ture said that no man should put asunder those whom God had joined together. After an act of adultery man did not put parties asunder ; they were put asunder by their own act. Tee moment a woman committed adsl tery that moment she ceased to be a wife, and both the common law and the ecclesiastical law of England pro vided that when a woman committed adultery her hus band was not bound to support her. Divorce on the ground of adultery had been sanctioned from the earliest times. It was sanctioned both in the Old and in the New Testament. Mr. WIGRAM said there were two reasons for his supporting the hon. member for the University of Ox fcrd—the one was that the bill was being argued at a time of the session when it could not receive due con sideration, and he believed that until this session the subject had not really been before the country. There was no feeling in the country in favour of this bill to justify its being forced on this session. Another reason for his voting against the second reading was, that this was a bill for dealing with the subject of divorce in Eng land, and he thought was the first time it was proposed to legislate on the subject of divorce, and whenever an alteration took place in the law upon that subject, the law ought to be an imperial one. If marriage were made dissoluble in England, it ought to be made dis soluble in Ireland. They ought to deal with the subject as a whole, and establish the uniform law, and in that respect he thought the bill was ill-timed, and therefore he should vote against the second reading. Mr. HATCHELL did not think there was in Eog land any urgent call for any alteration in the existing state of the law. Because there was a scandal connected with the law, was it not possible to sweep away that scandal without sapping and undermining the sacred ob ligation of marriage t The hon. member referred to the opinions of Lord Loughborough and the Bishop of Durham in 1798, on the evils which resulted from the facilities for graating divorce, and explained the laxity of morals among the higher classes occasioned by the grant ing of divorces. He objected to this b'll on the ground that it would produce an increased desire among the people of this country in favour of divorce, and this was a circumstance which he would greatly deplore. It was to the notion of the perfect indissolubiltty of marriage that was due the great social comfort and happiness which prevailed among the homes of the people of Ire land, the peasantry of that country looking upon their marriage vow as one which must no more be broken than the vow of a novice on entering into her life of seclusion. He should feel it his duty to oppose the se cond reading of the bill. Mr. BOWYER called attention to the fact that there had not been a single petition presented in its favour, while not less than 90,000 persons of all classes had re corded their opinions in opposition to the measure. The bill proposed to be a poor,man's bill, but that was a moat erroneous view of it, and the cumbrous character of the machinery of, the court to be founded would never admit of the court being made applicable to the suits instituted by the poor man. But before these considerations arose a prior question was to be decided, which was whether the divine law sanctioned divorce a vinculo / This was a theological question, and upon which the opinions of the clergy should be taken after careful deliberation. The measure was not a mere winding-up act, or one for legalising partnership on limited liability, 'but it sas one which was in direct opposition to the divine law, and the passing of which involved most serious responsibility, and the gravest consideration. The hon. member proceeded to refer to the evils which re sulted from facility of obtaining divorces, instancing the state of things which existed in Prussia at the present time. If the bill were passed, it would lead to universal immorality, by permitting men to get rid of their wives, and the principle of the indissolubity of marriage, if once admitted, it would never be possible to confine the grounds of divorce to adultery. The hon. member then proceeded to argue at some length that the divorce a vinculo was not permitted, either by the divine law, or the Christian law, which was part and parcel of the law of this country, and supported his opinion by quota tions St. Luke, St. Mark, and St. Mathew, in Gospels contended of that the apparent inconsistency bet n had cued did not in the least de gree v alidity e of the argu men t, th a t th e di vorce a v i nculo affectfe h against divin e l aw . If t h ere was ever a ec turiom t he a w n the ad s the texts doubt as to the construction of the Divine law, and surely no one will contend, on the °tilt r side, that there was not a doubt, they ought not to compel clergymen to act in violation of their consciences. He could not agree with those who invested the law with intallibility. He referred to the text "Give unto Ca) ar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's," as showing that there limits to the authority of Caesar. Where there was a doubt they ought to abstain, and not to pass a law which peradventure might be a violation of the law of God. Mr. MALINS, who rose amid cries of "Divide," said he could not give a silent vote on this question. He must admit that some difficulty:did arise from the course the legislature had taken during the last century and a half. No doubt when the Roman Catholic religion was established in this country, and marriage was considered inviolable, expedients were resorted to, not to dissolve a marriage, but to declare it to have been void from the beginning. The Government treated this as so great and crying an evil that they must press it on now in the dog days, when there was no time to discuss it ; but the average of divorces was not more than three in a year. He thought the interests of society would be best served by making marriage indissoluble under any and every circumstance. His hon. and learned friend had said it was a great blot on the legislation of the coun try that a rich man could get a divorce while the poor man could not. If that argument were worth anything, his hon. and learned friend ought to show that this was a poor man's bill. But the court would be as high a court as could well be constructed. No man under this bill would be able to get a divorce for less than three, four, or five hundred pounds. What, then, was the use of caling it a poor man's bill (Hear ) The present law considered marriage as indissoluble, for to dissolve it required a special act of Partiament. But this bill would hold out to all who were married that their marriage was not indissoluble, for a court was created expressly to dissolve it. This might be expedient, but if so, it ought not to be done at this period of the session, and in such baste. But he wou'd not put it on such narrow ground. He took the broader ground that it was best for society that marriage should be indissoluble. In sup port of this view, he quoted an opinion of Lord Stowell. He contended that the p a ssing of this law would hold out an inducement to infidelity to the marriage tis. There were many specious arguments in favour of the bill ; the principle, indeed, was undeniable, if the pre sent exceptional divorces were to be allowed, but he objected even to them. If there was a strong feeling in the house in favour of the bill, it had not been shown in this debate. He complained of the course taken by the Government in forcing on the bill at this p eriod of the session. Lord J. MANNERS said they were told a few nights back that there was ample t ime to discuss the bill—that the house was full of life and s p irit. But not one s p eech bad been made in favour of the measure which showed that life and vigour. He maintained that the arguments of the Attorney- General were sophistical. The learned Attorney-General said that the bill had made no change in the law o f the land, which he after wards qualified by say i n g that it, made no material he land, but his own gsolul.ility of marriage ) change. He said that the h uman dissolubility of mar- riage was the accepted ia:'? ()f speech showed that thehuman ins.. was held till the time of Charles If , Du?: that was not a favourable period in point of religion or inort,2"Y. The fact that since that period two or three divorce :la: per session had in soma way slipped through Parliament, was no reason for passing a sweeping measure like this. What struck him as the most painful argument was, that the two houses together were to be considered as a sort of judicial tribunal. Was any judge able to rei:" to consider a case, and kick it out of court altogether ? of he bishops had been asked why he did not oppose all these exceptional acts, and had replied that he would do so for the future ; and a member of this house had given a similar pledge that night. Could that be if this was a judicial proceedieg ? At this late hour be would not enter into the Scriptural argument. A portion of this house who were unconvinced by the arguments of the late Attorney-Gef i eral, would continue of opinion that this ADDRESS. Lord CA.STLEROSSE, Comptroller of the Household, brought up her Majesty's most gracious answer to the address agreed to by the House of Commons a few nights since on the motion of Lord J. Russell, relative to the present state of India. Her Majesty thanked the Com mons for their loyal and dutiful address, and the assur ance of the cordial support of any measures that might be deemed necessary for repressing the distur bances in India, and for restoring contentment and tranquillity in that important portion of her Majesty's dominions. The other orders for the morning sitting were diQposed of, and the house suspended its sitting at 4 o'clock. The house resumed at 6 o'clock. - MILITARY EDUCATION. Sir J. R AMSDEN laid on the table the first report of the Council on 111Jbtary Education. EAST INDIA. (DUDE). Toe Earl of GIFFORD obtained an order for copies of a despatch from the Governor-General of India in Council, dated the 4th Sept., 1853, together with ita en closures, and of the reply from the Court of Directors of the East India CJmpany relating to Oude. THE STENCH FROM THE RIVER. Mr. ADDERLEY asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he had any plan for the prevention of the pestilential stench which comes every evening into every window on the river front of the Houses of Parliament ; whether there is any power to enforce better trapping of the drains, or a removal of the deposits of bones and other refuse on the opposite bank, or whether legislation for the purpose is necessary ; or, if there be redress, whether any plan has been suggested by which the stench may be shut out of the houses by closing up all the windows on the river side, and admitting air from another (Fraction I Sir B. HALL replied that the providing of a remedy for the evil did not rest with the department over which he presided, but with the Board of Works, but in con sequence of the representations that had been made he had seen Mr. Gurney on the subject. and that gentleman had given him this explanation : —That the stench came from the mouths of the sewers, and that the whole neigh bourhood was infected. Another cause of this annoy ance, he was informed, was that the Great Victoria sewe-s bad broken up, so that the sewage was diverted into the Bridge-street sewer, where it had caused a blow ing up of the trapping. Another great can-e of the an noyance was on the other side of the river, where certain offensive trades were carried on. And here he must remind the house of a circumstance which occurred when a bill was brought in to suppress nuisance of this kind in large towns, and was referred to a select committee. When it came down from the committee it was in such a state that had it passed as it then stood, ample power would have been given to the local authorities to suppress such nuisances, and there was also a clause to impose a penalty on the local board if they neglected their duty in this re spect. But no sooner did this state of the bill become known, than the bone-boilers and gut•spinoers— (laughter)—canvassed the members of this house, and the result was that those clauses were struck out. We were thus left entirely in the bands of the local boards, and if it happened that any persons carrying on those trades were on the boards, it was not to be expected that much would be done in the matter. It was a curious circumstance that the hon. member who put the question was one of those who were most instrumental in making the alterations which bad left the law in its present state. (Laughter.) _ _ REGISTRATION OF IRELAND. -- Mr. ESMONDE asked the Chief Secretary for Ire land if it was the intention of the Government to intro duce in this or the next session a measure to provide for the general registration of births, marriages, and deaths, in Ireland ! Mr. H. HERBERT said it Was not the intention of Government to introduce any such measure at present. THE MILITIA. Colonel GREVILLE aske 1 the Under Secretary fir War at what period and how it was intended to pay this year's instalment of their bounty to the men of the re giments of militia who were not called out for training I Sir J. RAMSDEN said the precise date had not yet been Sxed. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION BILL. Mr. S. FITZGERALD inquired what course the Government proposed to take with respect to this bill, the second reading of which was carried yesterday by so great a majority. Lord PALMERSTON said the Government had thought it their duty to state at considerable length their objectors to the bill, which would entail considerable increase of expense to the country, but the house having affirmed the second reading by so full and so 11rgo a majority, they thought it would not be respectful to the house, to oppose it any further. Mr. GLADSTONE asked whether it was the inten tion of the Government to have any revision of the sala ries of civil servants in consequence of this bill I Lord PALMERSTON said that as the effect of the bill would be to add from 2 to 5 per cent. to the salaries of the civil servants, the revision, if any, would be a re vision by which these salaries would be diminished. THE LATE TELEGRAPH. Mr. STAFFORD asked it the Government were pre pared to give any explanation of the late period at which they had received the telegraphic message from Trieste / Sir 0. WOOD said that he was not able to give any reason for the delay. The vessel arrived at Trieste at 9 o'clock on Tuesday morning. It was the duty of the Barbour-master :o communicate the intelligence to the consul, who in his tar❑ had to draw up and transmit the telegraphic message to this country. The despatch was forwarded by the consul at half-past 10 o'clock, but it was not received here till half-past 12 on Wednesday morning. Government had no control over the mest , age after it left the hands of the consul, but it was certain that the message had taken 26 hours in travelling from Trieste to London. The East India Company received their message about the same time, after a delay pretty nearly equal. Mz WARREN asked if any application had been made at the telegraph-9ffice for information on the sub ject? Sir C. WOOD replied that he had not received the answer that the telegraphic message bad left Trieste at the time he had stated. It was clear that the delay was not owing to any neglect on the part of Govern ment, or of any servant of the Government. PUBLIC BUSINESS. Lord PALAIERSTON moved that upon Tuesday next, and on every succeeding Tuesday during the present session, Government orders of..the day shall have precedence. Mr: HADFIELD said that the number of bills ap peared to be increasing just in proportion to the impos sibility of carrying them. (A. laugh.) He asked what course would be taken with respect to the Divorce Btil, Probate Bill, and a bill for the Relief of Proctors? Mr. MALINS asked whether the Government meant to make the Probate Bill the first order for to-morrow (this day) Lord J. RUSSELL complained that after a session of only three months' duration the Lords should have fix.d the 7th Aupst as the last day for receiving bills from this home. In answer to questions from Mr. B. HOPE, Sir B. HALL Raid that the Public Offices Bill had Passed through committee with the distinct understand ing that the Uovsrnment were not to go on with it till the vote on account had been considered by the hone. Lord PALMERSTON said there was no intention to go on with the block plan, which would involve an ex penditure of millions. The Divorce Bill and Prob a t e Bi 1 were of so much importance that he trusted the house would pass them at once. If the former could be dis posed of that evening, the latter should stand first for to morrow, otherwise it would stand next to the Divorce Bill. He asked the house to pass the bills from the Lords for the consolidation of the statutes on the faith of the commissioners that there was no alteration in the law involved in them, but that they were merely for purposes of consolidation. Should the home insist -on going into the details, it would be impossible to pass them this session, or, for that matter, at any future period. The limitation of the period during which bills could be received from this house by the L.)rds was not a new practice. The noble lord appeared to take his standard from the beginning of the session, but the trueo standard was f rom t h e en d o f th e sess i on. (H ear ) Du Weft the 101.13 would waive the role in any case of emergency. p Mr n e t. 121)nbiBRISCOE0 hoped ees B i h l e t oGnoevxetrnm sessione n t would e apsousrte involving F uch large expenditure a ought not to be passed wi m th r ou t ri p A lan ß s b o y r estimates, Mr. consolidation bills were not mere consolidation bills, but Mdalter the ex sting law us material ly. If not they were ei es 4, for the text books contained a sufficient digest for all purpos es , The motion was carried with ou t opposition, DIVORCE BILLS. • The ATTORNEY-GEN.ERAL said thir bill had b regarded with alarmpaesrfebeetilnyggsruopuptiode jeLt:asin7tiroetroilere,ei pprroinycidipeldes.aTnesvcsclnasachinery to carry out the priacipLa which had been established for the last two centuries, Before the Reformation, marriage was held to be indis soluble, but when it was no longer held that marriage was a sacrament, a committee was appointed, a ,, d their reprt marriage was held to be dissoluble in cases of divorce. Unfortunately, however, the ecclesiastical tribunals were left in full force, and this matter was left under their control. It mattered not, therefore, whether the functions in reference to divorce were discharged by a body calling itself Legislative, or by two or three persons sitting in a court of justice. The nature of the theory remained the same, whatever may be the denomination given to it. It was essentially a judi cial proceeding, as the proceedings in Parliament bad always been judicial, the only difference being that it was now proposed to discharge the duties by means of an ordinary court of justice. The law bad been admi nistered by the House of Lords for 150 years, and it bad always been open to parties to apply to Parliament for redress. Now, it was impossible to conceal from them that there had always been a law of divorce, well under stood, and that under that law marriage had been capa ble of being absolutely nullified. It has been too much the habit to speak of marriage as by the law a thing in• disputable, and when it was known that they were about to establish a court of divorce, it had been thought that a new principle —anew rule—a new law, was about to be introduced into the law (.f England. Now, what be wished to show was, that this law had prevailed during the last 150 years in the House of Lords. In the course of the application of that law, it had been laid down that there were circumstances under which a marriage was not indissoluble. For instance, a man having an adul. terous wife might obtain a divorce, but not if there had been any collusion, or connivance. The first step was to obtain a decree from the ecclesiastical court a menPa et thoro, and he then might obtain from the House of Lords a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. But in the case of a woman who could not obtain a divorce for simple adul tery, and precedents had been laid down providing that a divorce might be obtained where there was adultery, combined with incest, or under circumstances of cruelty, the only change this bill proposed to make was to enable a woman to obtain a divorce for adultery combined with malicious desertion, and the transfer of the hearing to a judicial tribunal, where the circumstances might be more conveniently investigated. The form of procedure would be divested of all those circumstances which had consti tuted the main objections to the present administration of the law, so that while the law remained pretty. much the same as it was, the way of getting at it would be greatly facilitated. He would now proceed to constdet some of the religions arguments which had been adduced against the principle of the bill, particularly in reference 1 to the question whether the persons who bad been di vorced might marry again. Shortly after the Reforma tion a case arose which would illustrate one branch of this question—namely, the case of the Mayens, of Northamp ton, from which it was clearly established that a divorce waa a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. This, therefore, being the recognition of the law as it was at the early period of the Reformation, he need not reftr them to the host of writers who had confirmed and supported it, but he might repeat that for two centuries that principle had been acted noon in•, * ouse of Lords, and after the bills were passed t me down to the House of Commons for confirmation He did not believe that since the case of the Duke of Norfolk any bishop had objscted to divorce on the grounds now taken by those who were opposed to the bill, namely, that by the law of England marriage was indissoluble, and that too on Scriptural authority. If that were true, every dissolu tion of marriage which had been sanctioned by Parlia ment was a violation of the Scriptures. (Hear, hear.) If the house rejected this hill, it would condemn every thing that had been done during the last 200 years, and, if it acted consistently, must strike out of the statute book everything relating to the present law of divorce— (Hear, hear)—but if they admitted the principle of d:- voroe, he held that they were bound to give their sanc• tion to a plan which wonli render more easy the ad ministration of the law. (Hear, hear.) His attention had been directed to some of the pamphlets which had been written on this subject, and which, for the most part, urged the authority of Scripture as an insur mountable objection to this bill. One of these was at tributed to no less a distinguished person than the author of the "Christian Year," another to a distje guished writer in the Quarterly Review, and another to a writer who was known as well for his legal as his Scriptural knowledge. To these he would briefly allude. By the Jewish law adultery was not the occasion of divorce but of criminal punishment—it was punish. able by death, and therefore the vinculo ma• trimonii was more effectual in those days than now. He did not think that the house would be led away by arguments based upon such a variety of inconsistent and contradictory interpretations. But what wasit which really gave force to matrimony, and which made it so highly esteemed in the Roman Catholic Church! It was that solemn assurance, " that in the beginning God cre ated male and females male and female created he one ;" and, again, that " a man should leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they two should be one flesh." That he tbetieved it was that gave force to the holy and Christian character of matrimony. But what was it that destroyed that holy connection ? Clearly, adultery. That it was that severed the sacred bond, for it was clearly defined by Scripture as a dissolution of the sacred tie. (Hear.) He bad thus adverted to the scrip tural argument because they had heard so much of it an another place, and were likely to hear so much of it again. (Liughter.) His first opponent would be the hon. and learned member for Dundalk, and therefore he might be pardoned for alluding to the decrees of the Council of Trent. f_The Attorney-General read extracts from the de r crees of the Council of Trent, khowing that, according to the canons ofthe Church of Rome, marriage was not held F in all cases an in lissoluble tie.] He hoped, under the circumstances, they would steer clear of the scriptural difficulty, and he would advise them to adhere to that interpretation, which had been accepted, not only by the Church of England, but by all the Protestant Churches of Christendom. Dismissing those topics, he came to ano ther which was a fruitful source of objection, viz., inter marriage of the guilty parties, and whether such mar riages should be left to be solemnised in facie ecclesise. They bad heard that 6,000 clergymen had petitioned that such a burden should not be laid upon their con sciences. But those reverend gentlemen had submitted to the law in times past, and could they fail to regard it as a conscientious objection when there were only two or three cases, and contend that it was so when the cases were likely to be more numerous t He could not conceive anything more danger ius ti-an to permit the clergy to be relieved from the obligation of obeying the law, and while the Crown was supreme, the clergy must submit to the law of the land, which was the true principle of the connection between the Church and the State. The Church was bound, therefore, by the obli gation of the law. No doubt, therefore, could exist of the desirability of requiring from the clergy absolute and implicit obedience to the law ; and if it should be the law when this bill passed—as it had been the law hitherto— he trusted that the House of Commons would never en tertain the question whether or not a portion of the clergy should be exempted from its observance. But there was another point to which he might advert. This bill would abolish actions for criminal conversation ; and it had been asked what was to be substituted for it. He knew a case in which a woman who bad property ob tained a divorce, and the family lost that which was their sole dependent .. In such a case the court would have power to give compensation, or to make provision for families. )Vah regard to the constitution of the court itself, it would be very simple. After a prelimin• ,ty inquiry, the case would be heard before the %VI, Court, consisting of the Lord Chancellor and one of the chief judges of the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, or the Exchequer. Tne tribunal would accomplish ail the objects desired in this i nves ti gat i on, an d ren d er col lusion and connivance between the parties impossible. The other portions of the bill dealt with the procped ings heretofore confined to the Ecclesiastical Courts, re. lative to divorce a mensa et thoro, which was nothing more than regulating the terms of a mutual separation, and the name of the proceeding would be changed from the improper term of divorce to that of judicial separation. By the bill the hard earned gains of a wife separated from her husband for adultery or cruelty on his part would be protected, and the savage character of our laws with regard to husband and wife in that respect would be remedied. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman referred to the three periods when the question of the indissolubility of marriage was dis cussed in that house, on each of which occasions they negatived that principle, viz., in 1770, when a bill was brought down from the House of Lords ; about fifteen or sixteen years after that time, and finally in 1800 ; and he said that it should be borne in mind in discussing the measures now before the house, that the house inva riably struck out of all divorce bills the clause prevent ing the dissolubility and re-marriage of the parties, Rav ine dealt with the matter in that way for upwards of 150 years, it was desirable that the house should bow to precedent and adopt that principle by affirming the se• cond reading of the bill. Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved the second reading of the bill that day three months. On a former occasion, when the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford. shire brought forward his motion for the delay, the right bon. gentleman and those who supported him were re proached with preventing th e l earne d A ttorney. General from stating to the house the principles of the bill. The hon. and learned gentleman had 11077 availed himself of that opportunity. He (Sir W. Heathoote) had listened attentively to the learned gentleman's statement, but he bad been unable to discover that the bill was based on any principle whatever. The learned g en tl eman h a d h o wever assumed tbroughont his speech what it w as im possible for him to prove, that this bill only dealt w ith t h e existing law of England in referenc e vorce, but that it put the remedyin a differe n t s h ape. The hon. baronet eon ended at considerable length the indissolubility of marriage, and the hardship it would be on the clergy to be subjected to pains and penal ties for not performing an act which in their con sciences they considered repugnant to Scripture. H e also condemned the establishment of the proposed Divorce Court, the powers of which would (if the bill were passed) at no distant period be conferred on our county courts, which would then have the effect of introducing a state of things in reference to marriage similar to that now existing in Prussia. He considered this a question of great importance, so great that a form of government sank into insignificance in comparison with it. It was a measure that affected the sanctity of the homes of every person in the country—the purity of woman and her equal position in the social scale. This the Government were about to accomplish by a legislative enactment con trary to our religion, and carry it into effect by the wholesale persecution of its ministers. (Hear, bear.) He earnestly ca'led upon the house to support his amendment from a conviction that it was no in a posi tion ta legislate on the subject. By deferring the mea sure until next session hon. members would be able to give their undivided attention to it during the recess, and be in a better position at tho commencement of a new session to cons der and discuss i.s various provisions. • Alderman CIIBITT seconded the amendtient. biil had reversed the law of God. It was said that the principle of the bill was settled by tee discussion in the House of Lords, but he thought that, on a subject which affected the dome-tic happiness of the great mass of the people, they were not to accept the dictum of ail , assem bly. Th re were indeed in the upper house grave and reverend prelates, whose authority he was willing to ac cept, but iLe r ant` ority was agaiest the bill. It was opposed to the Divine law, and also struck at the roots of all human law. If the house was to reverse the 7th, why not also the Bth Commandment? If they were to allow the man who robbed another of his wife, for the payment of a small fine, to enjoy full gratification of his wishes, how could they maintain penal establishments to punish the man who stole his neighbour's worldly goods ? This measure would encourage a woman who was disappointed i❑ marriage to believe that if she only had the bad courage to commit herself entirely to sin, years of worldly happi ness were in store for her. He referred to the frequency of divorces in Prussia to show the evil effects of the law. The Catholics were not sheltered from the evil effects of the law, for in one case for instance a man bad been married and divorced six times, and had six wives living. Not only was the adulterer allowed to live in worldly happiness, but also in worldly respectability. The learned Attorney-General had said on the part of the Government that he wool i never consent to relieve the clergy from the terrible hardship of being compelled to remarry persons under this act, It was impossible for any body of men to be more tightly bound than were the clergy. More consideration was shown for any ether class or profession. The rule was adhered to that persons who had undertaken solemn obligations upon certain condi tions should not be burdened with obligations 'they could not have foreseen. It had been said that the clergy muss learn to obey the law, but he said the learned At torney-General ought to protect the cicrey. He regretted to hear the taunts which had been thrown out againstthe clergy, who in their petitions bad merely prayed that, in the event of this bill passing into a law, they might be relieved from the onus of what tboy considered adulter ous marriages. (The noble lord read ex'racts from seve ral petitions which had been presented as a confirmation of his view of the case.) He thought that no claim could be more just or more moderate than the claim preferred by the clergy, and he did not see bow the house could resist it. Parliamentarily they might do it, but morally it was impossible. (Rear, hear.) Twice in the history of this country the clergy had been driven from their livings, and been compelled to retire into private life, but this was not a bill involving the question whether episcopacy was an integral part of the Churcb, or whether one or two monarchs should have the allegiance of the clergy, but whether that body of men should give way to the lust of adulterers and tho tyranny of Parliament. (Cheers.) Believing that this bill would introduce a fatal change in the principles of the Church, and be fraught with danger to the country, he should studiously resit it. Mr. GLADSTONE moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord PALMERSTON expressed a hope that the house would cline to a decision on the bill that night. Mr. NAPIER supported to the adjournment. He should consider it to be his duty to gate fully the rea sons upon which he should record his vote. The house divided, and the numbers were— For the adjournment 125 Against it Majority —63 The motion hr adjournment was therefore lost. Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the house. Lord PALMERSTON thought the house should be bound by the majority kist announced. (No, no, and divide.) Mr. WALPOLE apprehended that all his right hon. friend meant to imply was that a further discussion should be taken upon a question of so much importa❑ce. As far as he was concerned, he intended to support the second reading of the bill. Sir G. GREY thought he had never seen a more lan guid debate. The right hon. gentleman the member for the - University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) might have addressed the house at any period during the evening. He was unwilling to divide again. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide, divide.') After some further discussion, Mr. HENLEY withdrew his motion, and Lard LOTAINE moved the adj iurnment of the debate. The motion was agreed to without a division. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. On clause 20, having reference to leases, Mr. HENLEY objected to discuss a clause of such great importance after the house bad sat for 13 hours. After some discussion, this and some subsequent cl‘uses were agreed to. The Constables (Detached Parts of Counties) Bill was read a second time. The Boundaries of Burgh's Extension (Scotland) Bill was read a second time. The County Court Judges (Falconer and Yates's Salaries) Bill passed through committee. The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The orders of the day for the second reading of the Adulteration of Food or Drink Bill, and the Sale of Corn Bill, were discharged. The Lords' amendments to the Registration of Long Leases (Scotland) Bill were agreed to. The General Board of Health Continuance Bill was read a second time. SUPERANNUATION ACT AANDMENT BILL. Lord NAAS moved that the House resolve itself into committee upon this Bal. Mr. GLADSTONE raid thatas far ache personally was concerned he was prepared even at that late hour (20 minutes to 2) to proceed with the diecUssion of the de tails of the Bill, but he thought that the subject was of such importance that notwithstanding the decision at which the house arrived the day before, and the adhesion of the Government to the measure, it ought not t ) be passed en hurriedly. His object was to ascertain clearly what was to be the position assumed with respect to :he remunera:ion of the civil servants. The Secretary of the Treasury had announced on a previous occasion that the financial effect of the measure would be by its direct effect and its probable results an increase to the public expenditure of from 200,0001. to 300,0001. a year, aed that appeared to him to be a serious matter. He wished to remind the House that they had been sedulously told that in voting for the Bill they were not voting for an increase of the public burdens, and he believed that the noble lord who had introduced the measure had put it to the House that they were not called upon to decide as to an increase of salaries to the public servants, but simply as to the question of the abolition of the deductions of the superannuation fund. Now, what was the position of the house with re gard to the legislation proposed Why, the bill, in point of fact, rested neither upon the rep'•rt of the Parlia mentary committee, nor upon that of the Royal commis sion, for the Parliamentary committee recommended a uniform revision of the salaries of the public servants with reference to the amount of deduction remitted, and the commission looked upon the charge upon the revenue as being of merely a temporary character. He asked the Government for explanations of their intentions with respect to the revision of public salaries. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was now 2 o'clock, and the house would meet again at 12. Therefore, without answering the righ hon, gentle men, he would suggest the postponement of this stage of the bill, that there might be an opportunity of coming to a clear understanding what it was the Government was expected to do if the bill passed, because the bill simply repealed the reduction without cmditioes. Mr. AYRTON moved that the house do now adjourn. Lord NAAS would not acoede to that motion. Tie time of the house was entirely in the hands of the Go vernment, and it was impossible for him to bring on the discussion on the bill early in the evening. The Govern ment bad promised not to oppose its further stages, and to postpone it, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have the effect of defeating the bill altogether. There was nothing in the bill to prevent the Treasury revising the salaries as they might think proper. He hoped the Government would adhere to their promise. Mr. HENLEY said they had many of them been there 14 hours. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Glad stone) very naturally asked for explanations. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer intimated that to give those ex• planations would occupy some time, and suggested the postponement of the bill. That could hardly be regarded as opposing it. (Rear, bear.) Mr. S. FITZGER A.LD complained that upon the faith of the noble lord's statement that the Government would not •oppose the bill many of its supporters were gone home. Advantage was to be taken of the hour of the night to defeat the bill by delay. A s a matter of justice and as a matter of honour the bill ought to be permitted to go through committee, and if it were not no dependence could henceforth be placed upon the as surance of the Government or of the leading members of the house. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) should make his speech on bringing up the report. Mr. GLADSTONE said it was only fair that he should know what the Government intended to do before the bill passed through committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did not initiate any objection or any opposition. He was asked a question, and he did not think it desirable to go into the discussion at that hour of the night. To prevent misconception and, perhaps, a reversal of the policy once adopted by the house, of which there was more than one example, there ought to be a clear under standing what the consequences of the bill would be, and what course the Government was to take upon it. Sir J PAKINGTON paid that as the question stood it seemed to him a question of good faith—whether the promise of the noble lord to his noble friend not to op pose the bill was to be kept. (Hear and No.) Mr. GLADSTONE said he gave notice at 6 o'clock that he shoull rai,e a discussion on the bill. Lori PALMERSTON suggested that the bill should be put off for another day. Lord NAAS declined to accede to the puggeation. The galleriei were cleared for a division, but none took place. On the question that the Speaker should leave the chair. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked if was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce any clauses into the bill ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—As I understand the decision of the house yesterday it was that the clause in the Superannuation Act should be simply repealed. The effect of that will be to add 5 per cent, to the salaries of those civil servants tinder that Oct who have more than 1001. a-year, and 21 per cent. L•t3 salaries of those who have lass than that amount. to tu ~t n on , f r i en d (M r . Gl a dstone) explained t o th e M y r ' , g'. this was technically a repeal of a tax and house that -dditional salaries, the noble lord had a not a grant of .. 'reposition. Substantially, however,' right to make this 1~ ~al salaries to the civil servants. it is a grant of additio, ind if the Ge7ernment were In that sense I take subsequently to revise those salaries, so as to make a diminution in them corresponding to this increase, they would be indirect!y defeating the vote of this house. In the bill of last session there were words which imposed upon the Treasury the du'.y of revising the salaries, hav ing rsgard to the amount, of the deductions which were remitted. Had there hen similar words in this bi.l the Treasury would have known upon what principle they were to proceed, but their express omission seems to me, owing to the rule omissant jacit cessare taciturn, to indi cate the intention of the house that that principle should not be acted upon. I therefore wish to state distinctly that if the bill passes in its present form the house mu t consider that it has of its own free gift, without any addition to the duties of the civil servants, and without reference to individual merit, made them a present of the additions to their salari e s w h ic h I h ave mentioned. Her Majesty's Government will act UPOn-tl-11T;nler standing of the measure, and will take no steps to revise the salaries of the civil servants. It must therefore be understood that the house had done this against the con e-mt and advice of the executive Government, and has also placed the Treasury in a position in which it may not be easy to resist the claims of that portion of the civil servants who do not novi receive superannuation allowances, which wi:l entail a prospective addition in the same direction. I hope that these consequences are distinctly in the contemplation of the house, and with that explanation I any quite ready, after the vote of yes terday, to assent to the bill of the noble lord. Sir J. TRELA.WNY moved the adjJurnment of the debate. Mr. WHITESIDE said that after the speech of the Chancellor of the Ex.?,hequer everything seemed to be settled. The house divided, when the numbers were— Ayes Noes 77 • Maiirity —59 The motion for the adjournment of the debate was therefore I ,, st, and the house went into committee. On the questioin that the preamble be postponed, Mr. GLADSTONE said he would not attempt to de feat the mil by successive motions for adjournment, but ho protested against their being compelled to pass it through committee without discussion. He thought that the Government were now as much responsible for the bill as if it had originated with them. Lord PALMERSTON denied that the Government were responsible for the bill. Tney had stated what they thought good objections to it, but the house, by a large majority, had overruled them. Having stated in the early part of the evening that it was not their intention to oppose the bill, they could not in fairness now resort to any proceeding which would have the effect of defeating it by delay. Mr. AYRTON thought it was strange that the Go vernment could not muster more than 70 members against the second reading of file bill. The only expla nation of the smallness of the minority was that thi opinion of the house had not been fairly taken. Hence the necessity for further discussion. Sir J. TRELAWNY had no intention to offer any factious opposition to the bill, but hoped that time would be given for further consideration. Lord NAAS said the bill had already been fully dis cussed, and, considering that it was very simple in its character, he trusted that no further delay would take place. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the simplicity of the bill was one of his strongest objections to it. It touched only a small part of the question of superannuation. He thought that too much haste—more than the Government durst venture to attempt—was exhibited in pushing it through the House. Mr. HANKEY said the principle of the bill was, that in future no deduction should be made from the salaries of civil servants. It did not enter upon the subject of future salaries, and it would be quite competent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a clause to meet the difficulty which he appeared to anticipate. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished the noble lord (Naas) to explain the operation of his bill, which, consisting as it did of a single clause, negatived an exoiting statute which gave superannuation to certain officers. If that. act were repealed would not these claims to superannua tion allowances be weakened ("No.") The Chancellor of the Exchequer indeed might take the power to revise the salaries. (Hear.) Mr. WALTER was in favour and had advocated the removal of the system of deductions, which be believed to be altogether unsound in principle, but he had voted against the second reading of the bill because he con ceived it did more than assert a principle. If the noble lord had simply intended to assert a principle he could have moved a resolution condemnatory of the existing system, and he (Mr. Walter) would have supported such a motion ; but the effect of the present bill would be to add from to 5 per cent. indiscriminately to the salaries of 16,000 public servants. (Hear, hear.) But he could not give his support to a measure the imme diate effect of which would be to tax the public to he knew not what extent. (Hear.) The proper course would be for the Government to introduce a proposition stating that there should be some revision of the salaries of the civil servants, in order that the unsound principle of deductions might be abolished. Mr. AYRTON proposed to add a recital to the effect that it was advisable the salaries of the civil servants should be revised. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not think the words suggested by the hon. and learned gen tleman would meet the case. The Treasury had now the power of revising salaries. (Rear, hear.) What it was rna*erial to understand was whether it was intended that salaries should be diminished rateably, in the eame pro portion ai the House was of opinio❑ now they ought to be increased. If so, that principle should be distinctly inserted in the act, otherwise the Treasury, in the exer cise of their prerogative of revision, might hereafter be accused of contravening a solemn decision of the House of Commons. Lord NAAS said it was impossible to introduce into the bill a clause for revising the salaries, as that could alone be done by the Treasury, which already possessed the power. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the Treasury could not take up the cats of each indivi dual whose salary would be affected by the bill, as that would be virtually to repeal the bill. Mr. NICOL moved that the chairman report progress. The committee divided, when the numbers were— For reporting progress 3l Against it 49 Majority against it Sir J. TRELAWNY suggested that all the civil ser vants who were affected by the bill should resign their offices, and go in again on the competitive system. On clause 1, Mr. AYRTON moved to add the words—" That the salaries of the civil servants shall be revised, having due regard to the amount of reduction hereby made." Tho CHANCELLOItof the EXCHEQUER opposed the amendment, because practically it would put the civil servants in a worse position than they were at present. Mr. AYRTON withdrew his amendment. Sir J. TRELAWNY moved the addition of the fol lowing words—" Provided it can be proved that any individual has lost any advantages which without this act be would have enjoyed, he shall receive compensation to an equivalent extent." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the amendment could notbe considered, as it would not be competent for the house to make such a charge upon the Exchequer without a committee of the whole houee. Sir J. TRELAWNY was very unwilling to proceed with the debate at such an hour in the morning -10 minutes past 3. The house was to meet again at 12, and the pressure was exceedingly heavy upon the Speaker, upon members, and upon the gentlemen who had to report the debates. fie moved as an amendment that the chairman report prcgress, and obtain leave to sit again. - On a division there appeared— For reporting progress Against it Majority The clause was ultimately agreed to, and, the house having resumed, the bill was rep )rted amidst cheers. The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad journed at Lalf-past 3. Mr. TOLLEMACHE has paired off for the rest of the session with Mr. M. T. SMITH. THE TRANSFER OF LAND.—Two separate bills have been presented to the House of Lonis by two ex-Chan cellors for the simplification of the transfer of real estate. The one drawn up by Lord :Brougham and Vaux, makes provision for the registration of the titles of land by the appointment of a registrar-general and a corps of registrars, whose duties are clearly defined, and by whom devis•ees, heirs-at-law, trustees, tenant,-in fee, and recently enfranchised persons may be registered. The country will be divided into districts by order in Council for the registration of assurances of real estate. A second bill, emanating from Lord St. Leonard's, re stricts executory de :ises, shor ens the time of the limita tion of actions against purchasers without notice, &c. [A.DVERTISEMENTI—It is with pleasure we notice the daily increase of cures without medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver com plaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility, by Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica. We quote the follow ing : —Southwick Park, Fareham, Hants, Oct. 31, 1818. — Gentlemen, I sincerely thank you for your kind attention. When I began taking the Revalenta I was in as deplorable a condition as can well be imagined. I was confined to my bed, and so weak that I could neither stand nor walk, suffering severely from flatulency, constipation, and indigestion, and being compelled to have recourse to aperients every second or third day; and, upon one occasion, I swallowed no less than seven doses within twenty-eight hours, under medical advice. There was a giddiness in my head, and a singing in my right ear, that when I turned my head ou the pillow it resembled the sound produced by a light touch on a musical glass. I had a pain and sort of fullness across the chest, a sore throat and a slight cough ; but the pain around my loins was so great that I could not remain in the same position for ten minutes all night long. The principal seat of the pain seemed to be just below the ribs on my left side, and about three inches from the backbone. I commenced taking Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica morning and evening, boiled in water and salt; and in less than a fortnight my appetite was greatly improved, and flatulency and constipation so far vanished that I have not tasted a pill or drug of any kind since. I am much stronger, can walk steadier, and less like a drunken man, &c.—JeriN VASS, Land - steward.. Supported by testimonials from the celebrated Professors of Chemistry, Dr. A ndrew Ure ; Dr. Shorlaud ; Dr. Harvey Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wilmer ; Dr. I ngram Lord Stuart do Decies; the Dowager Countess of Castio Stuart; Major-Gen. Thomas King, and many other respeCtable persons, whose health has been restored by it, after all one! means of cure had failed. Suitabl y p ac ked with full in structions. In canisters , 11b, 2s . Pd. ; 21 b, 4s. 6d. ; 51b, 11s ; 121 b, 225. The 121 b canisters are sent carriage free, on receipt of Post-Office order.--Barry Du Barry, & Co., 77, Regent-street , London. IMPOR TANT CAP rIoN against the fearful dangers of spurious imitations :—The V:ce-Chancel lor Sir William Page Wooci- granted an lojuuction on the 10th March, 1854, against Alfred Hoope r N ev i l ' for imitatin , , 6 , D A Barry's Revalenta Arabia Food," ART IN DRESS-FASHION'S FOLLY. There are few things more curious to contem pl,:te than the "whirligig" of fashioo—which never s:a.ids still, hut is inc scantly presenting to the i w a few original devices, mixed with more which have seerning!y become fixtures in the wheel, and are copied, as it turns round, to a greater or less extent from time to time. Au old sea-faring character in one of Captain Marryat's novels, had an idea that in seventeen hun dred and so many years events rotated, and that in seveutcen hundred and so on, he would be engaged upon the identical employment on which lie was then busy : a similar belief might, with more means of proof, be attaclied to the revolutions of fashion. No doubt the ingenious artist who devised the flow ing and full-bottomed wig for the fair and youthful French monarch, the use of which was presently adapted to the grim -visaged Charles 11., thought . that he had hit upon an original device. A visit, however, to the Brit'sh Museum will show that " there are few things new under the sun," for there will be found a flowing wig just similar to that named, which was worn by s mae eminent Egyptian, probably two or three thousand years ago. While amongst th• peasant class, the wheel has in a measure stood still, changes have been constantly going on amrUgst others : we note the burly Saxon in his flowing lam.' graceful robes, the taste o f w hi c h was part l y bor rowed from the Romans, and the elegant:costly:nog of their wives and daughters derived from the Bailee source : then came the warlike covering, which so well displayed the stalwart forms of the Norinau warriors : the female dress of this period is singe ' larly tell ued and elegant. It would require a velunie to notice the numerous changes which were COy stantly made. The armour, from being made to lit to the shape of the human body,, grew to monstrous cases unlike anything in the natural creation, whic h enveloped both men and horses. Many strange de vices were turned out by fashion ; at one time the , toes of the gentl eman ' s s h oes gi ew l onger a nd longer, until is was found necessary to fasten the end of the point to the knee. This would seem t° us ridiculous enough, but many fashions in na ° i dern times m i g ht fe mentioned to show equa l absurdities : for instance, when that extraordi nary cut, th e swa llow-tailed coat, was intro duced, tho length of the tails was moderate ; i t, however, grew in longitude, until the end s were nearly e ven w i th the heels, and it was 0 011 some merciful turn of the wheel which caused the majority of the long tails to be turned into " spew cers." That preventedthe long necessity of tying the " swallow-tails" to the pig tails," in the same vesi that the shoe-toeswere formerly fast enedto the kne° 6 It is curious to remark that th e li ver i e d servan ts 0 , the rich are a means of preserving the costumes 0 ' various periods for many years : the silk bags °1 the backs of the state footmen, the long-tailed coats, the cocked hats, knee-breeches, and sit' stockings, were the ordinary apparel of the g entle' men themselves. Th e h a i r p ow d er , so muc h in 11 1, 60 or 70 years ago, by near ly ever y one o f respect, able condition, has now descended to the servann hall, and the neat wigs of other days may be st, l ;:, seen surmounting the craniums o f f as hionnw f coachmen, and in due cou rse , as the wheel 39 fashion moves round, the p resen t dress coats, Wil l i , waistcoats, and neck-ties all have lost their po, Con and taken th e pl ace o f th e l ace d coa t s an d CO' resdonding paraphern.alia.--:-The Builder. Country Markets. BOSTON—JULY 29. We have again to report an extremely dull market, 61 4 a small supply of wheat ; the few sales effected must noted at about last week's rates. In oats and beans I j change. Weather fine, and the crop s w er e never know n to present a more promising appearance. Prices :—Wheat, red, 50s Od to 61s Od ; new, to !,/, white, 603 Oct to 63s Od ; extra, 65 5 . B ar l e y, 40 s 0(1 to Od. Oats 25s to 31s. Peas, 40, to 44s Od. Beaus, 47 Od to 50s Od por qr. NEWARK—JULY 29. s i, A good attendance and a pl en tif u l su pply o f wo e vo which experiAnced a brisk sale, a t f u lly l as t wee prices. Atio Wheat, white 6apto 665, red 60s to 635; barley, ,t, --s to grindink 35s to 365; oats, 24st. 34s to 365, 31s to 33s ; beans, 48s to 52s ; malt, - 73s to 80s ; peas , to 435; tares, —s to --s per qr. LOUTH—JULY 29. Our market continues much d e p resse d, an d th e tri-Riied business done in corn was at about the rates of the vious week. Wheat, 55s to 59s ; extra, &is; ba r l e y 41 s t o 445; eo " 24s to 28s ; beans, 44s to 48s. MANCHESTER--JULY 30. • tb. At this day's market a firmer business was doing is Asil trade. Wheat, both English and American, common.' c o fully previous prices. Flour taken more freely, but Prio. unaltered. Beaus is per qr. and oats ld to 2d per 341 dearer. Oatmeal same as, last week. GLASGOW—JULY 29. A good attendance to-day, and a very fair busil Wheat recovered f ro m th e d e p ress i on , an d so ld in re to at the full prices of this day week. Demand c onlinecl ief American and sweet Danish. Flour unchanged. I WO quiet, the finer thscriptions only saleable. Limerick °. il fetch fully former prices for shipment. B eans scarce, '- d very firm. Peas neglected. EDINBURGH GRAIN.—TuLT 29. for The supply of grain of all kinds to-day was good . , the season. Sales were lively, and prices, with the eP" tion of oats, were better. Wheat, on the top, 4s Od up, and on the ace rig 4 was is ld up. Barley, is Od up on the top, an d gs pf up on the average. Oats on tho top N 6d up, an'„ o ,l the average 3d down. Beans on the top is Od up, on the average 7d up. AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. Wheat £2 6 7 9-12ths. Do. now -12th. Barley Oats 1 12 1 4-12 tbs• Btiala3 Total Supply and Sales. Wheat 1602 qrs sold 1292 qrs Barley l6B qrs sold 146 (ill Oats 1009 qrs sold 685 go Beans 55 qrs sold 47 (I'l DERBY SMITIIFIELD.—JuLT 28. There was a plentiful supply of fat beasts to-d t lg awl a full attendance of b u y ers ; th e greater par t of 01 animals were of the better sort, with a heavy sale, a n d a clelrance could not be effected. The supply of sheep / li r lambs was large, and several lots unsold. A large !pi ply of fat caves, and a heavy sale. A largo number of pig 3, good quality, but met a slow sale. The following were the quotations :—Beef, Gkd to mutton, 7d to 7d ; lamb, 8d to Bid ; veal, 61 tc 6) 11 "0/ lb. ; pigs, lOs Od to Ws Gd per score; rough fat, 5s 3 ,, per 141 b. ; hides, 41d to 6,d p er lb ; ca lf- s ki ns , 46d ' per lb. DEATH OF MRS. BEECHER STOWE'S SON."'" The or Courrier des Etats Unis mentions that Mrs. Beee b d p Stowe, who was staying at Brookly n , h a d rec eive o g telegraphic message announcing that her son, a y o U of man of 13, had been drowned, while on a party pleasure. „ A few days ago an eag l e struc k d ead a foal some ut:10 old, near Lord El e h o ' s s h oot i ng -box, where it w . to Luring with its mother. —John o'Groat's Journal. 1 Just published, price 3s. 61., letter to Viscount merston, K.G., on the political importance of t bs Euphrates V a ll ey R a il way, and the necessity of to financial support of her Majesty's Government. W. P. Andrew, F.R G.S., &c., Chairman Euphr at i Valley R a il way , w i t h reports b y Major-General Cireen,iep and Sir J. M acne ill, an d memoran d um, & c., b y Si r Jue", B Sheil, K C. 8., and map. Also minutes of evideeof before the House of Commons on the establishme nt . e is telegraphic communicatio n w ith I n di a th roug h Turi ti b, Arabia. By Sir W. B. O'Shaughnessy, T. K. 1 , 9 c ,i, Esq., and W. Ainsworth, Eq., & c ., St", &c•-I'l- Vog• rachee, by the Euphrates, is 1,400 miles n e arer to land than 13,,robay is by the Red Sea`—Sir Justin She o, London. W. H. Allen and Co., 7, Leadenhall-streefA BIRTHS. OF A SON • On the 27th inst., at Blenheim Cottage, Southsea, the D i of George Mowbray, Esq., P a y mas t er o f th e R o yal l a ' e Victoria and Albert. On the 29th inst., at 7, Gleng,all-terrace, Mrs. .. Tr ea Dettmar. On the Bth April; at Melbourne, Victoria, Lady BarklP OF A DAVOUTER, On tho 29th inst., tho wife of Honry Spencer Pere ll4 Esq. . I, o On the 28th • , t., at Heavitre , wile ,e) L.. ins., - Je, near Exeter, the Captain Otbo Travers, late King's Dragoon Guards. MARRIED. On the 28th inst., at Beddington Church, the Rev. Ch, Hillyer, son of the late W. T. Hillyer, Esq., of Kensing i o , to Ellen, daughter of Joseph Laurence, Esq., of Bedding t Surrey. ~,41 On the 29th inst., at Becke n h am Ch urch, Kent, Can"- R o bert Anstruther, Grenadi er G uar d s, eldest son of ~tacet A. Anstruther, Bart., of B a l cas ki e, N.B ,to Louisa, of daughter of the Rev. Willi am K nox Marshall, prebenb" Hereford. soidlnofttllDlED. ,e 0 late 30th o i Wilkie, o o n f , V i e t o e r r g n e o l s V t i e l i k ..r i e o , C w; E an . ici eo d C hill, Enfield, aged 37. 0 14 On the 2 Ali inst ,at 7, Chatham-place, Hackney, Hague. widow of the l a t e W. J. F ro d s h am , E sq., F . R . S ., aged illO On the 2t.'th inst., at 32, Upper Harley-street, Ellen' 66. wile of Sam ue l G regson , E sq., M . P. f or L ancas t er , age / . /e if- On the 2 ith inst., Sir Charles D.lsworth, Bart., of land-park, and Thornton Hall, Yorkshire, aged 81. v l s co Oa the 25th inst., at Hastings, Thomas MacEnteert barrister-at.l tw. d oh On the •23th inst., at Camden New-town, Mr. F. 133 son., aged 63. of On the 17th April, at Melbourne, Elizabeth Helen, w` a n d Sir Henry Barkly, K.C.8., Governor of Victoria, and T ic ier daughter of the late J. F. Thuins, Esq., of Hilfield , Lee ham, Herts, aged 37 ; and, on the 30th April, Huber'' Pakington, her infant son. -Grnt a Sl(l ' LONDON : Printed and Publiehed by KURD() YO .So: of No. 112, Strand, Printer, a t The Sun OW' Q ty coo 112, Strand, in the Precinct of th e Savoy, in the of Middlesex, Friday, July 31, 1357. ea to _ ws WI Tei on s Prir Pro Pot tta i eve And Phi Pita disc ford had na3 .~ Con est( act col( soft