The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-01 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

IRISH REVISING

At the early sitting of the house, the motion for
going into committee on the Revising Barristers
(Ireland) Bill was opposed by
Mr. NAPIER, who remarked upon the injustice it
would icflict upon the existing revising barristers in
Ireland. He moved as an amendment that the bill
should be committed that day month.
The ATTORNET.GEXERAI for IRELAND defended the
measure, which he said bad become necessary be.
gauss the existing sot had proved totally inoperative.
coaVidtPble 011PR4;CIR PP*? Mbia way

E- PR

s
ICP

.IJOUST 1, 1

members participated. Finally, the house divided.
For the motion, 90; against., 57-83.
The house went into committee on the bill, and
passed several clauses.

SLIGO ELECTION.
Sir J. Y. Emma reported from the Sligo Election
Committee, that Mr. P. Somets was unduly elected,
and that Mr. J. A. Wynne was duly elected, and
ought to have been returned member for the
borough. _ _

In the evening sitting,
Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that on Monday
next he should move for a select committee to in.
quire into the effect of the Act 5 d; 6 Will. IV. chap
62, with the view of ascertaining how far that sta-
tute was applicable to the oaths taken by members
of Parliament. He should propose a committee of
twenty-five members, and inquired whether the Go-
vernment would allow his mot►on to take precedence
of other business on that evening.

Lord PALMERSTON consented to postpone all the
Ministerial motions until the motion of the noble
lord was disposed of.

Sir J. PAramyrox asked Lord Palmerston whether
be would lay on the table a report made by the late
Sir C. Napier to the Duke of Wellington respecting
the organisation of the Indian army. This report,
as he was assured, differed from the document
moved for by Mr. Disraeli, from which extracts had
been already promised. Two reports had been pre-
pared by Sir C. Napier, and the one he wished to
obtain was dated iu 1850, and contained an elaborate
statement respecting the system of the Indian army.

Lord PAIXERSTON was not aware that more than
one report was in existence. He would have inquiry
made, and if the paper of 1850 could be found, he
apprehended there would be no difficulty in pro-
ducing the whole or parts of it.
Mr. WHITESIDE called attention to a petition from
same Hindoo inhabitants of Bengal, Berar, and
Orissa for themselves and the other Hindoo inhabi-
tants of the said provinces. The petitioners corn
plained of certain invasions of their religious rights
and privileges.

Some discussion followed, in which Mr. V. SMITH,
Sir C. Woon, and other member 4 took part. The
subject then dropped.

DIVORCE.
The adjourned debate on the Divorce and Matri-
monial Causes Bill (second reading) was re-
sumed by
Mi. GLADSTONE, who condemned the precipitancy
with which so important and novel a measure was
urged through the Legislature. He attributed this
haste to the desire of doing something so as to avoid
the disgrace of a blank session. He insisted that the
bill involved a new and dangerous principle, and
pointed out the broad distinction between the special
acts which allowed certain parties to be divorced by
way of privilege, and a statute by which divorce was
adopted as a recognised element of the legal system.
Parliament, be contended, were not competent to
deal with the question. The marriage bond pos.
sessed a threefold character. It was at one and
the same time a civil contract, a solemn vow, and a
religious obligation. It was only as regarded the
first of these three charaoters that the house was
entitled to legislate. Erm Acts of Parliament would
not absolve men from their vows, or release them
from obligations which the Church bad witnessed and
sanctioned. The right hon. member then proceeded
to analyse the arguments of the Attorney• General,
controverting in detail the various constructions of
scriptural texts which had been advanced in support
of the bill. He afterwards adverted to historical
testimony, showing that in all ages and countries
marriage had been held indissoluble by the Christian
Church. The bill, be maintained, would outrage the
religious feelings of the country, and tend in its con-
sequences to produce the most serious social evils.
Mr. WALPOLE described the practical operation of
the bill. It admitted no new principle or lighter
cause of divorce than was at present recognised, but
simply substituted one good tribunal for three bad
ones. The objections urged against the measure
seemed to him self-contradictory, and he did not
apprehend any corruption of public morality from its
enactment. He wished, however, to introduce a
clause relieving the clergy from any compulsion to
marry divorced persons against the conscientious
scruples which many of them were known to enter-
tain.

The ATTORNEY -GENERAL having replied,addressing
his rejoinder chiefly to the speech of Mr Gladstone,
The house divided,
For the second reading
Against

The bill was then read a second time.
The remaining business having been disposed of,
Op) bones Adjourned at half-past one 0'p19911,

1hk.,..