The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-01 00:00:00

N.E., fresh.—And. Constance, Africa for Harnburgh;
Cora. Permit-wee:a for C.,pentiage Girel,ll, Havaerala
for Hatnbugh; Virginia, New Orlea,s for Stetiiu.
from the River and sail' d. Missionary, Mauritius; C.cra,
San Francisco; Token, P..rilarnhiico; T ,bago;
Ewerretta, Gree•tda; Catherine Elizao,th, St Vi cen:;
Catherine, St. Fitt.'.;; 'Moro t.`,stle. Halifax; Frigia,
Quebec. Sid. M‘gell.,n. eig; Tartar, Cave of
Good nor; Lout's. \tnnte Video.
LITERPO,L, M ARCH 31.—Wii,d E.S.E —Arrd.
ginald, Heller, Calcutta; Alexander, Grant, New Or-
leans; Sea King, New Orleans; Greenoch, Mobile;
Switzerland, Charleston; Arctic steamer, New York.
Sid. Crisis. Shanghai; Cheverell, Ceylon; Prince
Arthur, Halifax.
COWES, MARCH 31.—Wind N.E.—Arrd. Columbus,
Rio Janeiro for Gothenburg.
PORTSMOUTH, MARCH 31.—Her Majesty's steamer
Antelope took the ground on Bambridge Ledge during
a fog this morning, and remains. Assistance has been
sent to her.
POOLE, MARCH 31.—The Lark, from Cowes, has
been towed in very leaky, and cargo thrown overboard,
having been on the sand at the entrance of the harbour.
YARMOUTH, MARCH 31.—The Lydia has come off
the beach with damage.
FALMOUTH, MARCH 31.—Wind
Anna Christina, Rio Janeiro. Off port, Eclipse, Mau-
ritius; Helena, Rio Janeiro for Altona ; Alexander,
Baltimore for Rotterdam. •
PENZANCE.—Arrd. Baron, Malta to London, part of
crew mutinous.
BRISTOL, MARCH 31.—Wind N. E.—Arrd. Araby
Maid, Mauritius; Saldanha Bay. Sld. Surrey, Port
Philip, and Sydney, New South Wales.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

BATLEY'S DIVORCE.

Their Lordships sat today at eleven o'clock, for the
purpose of hearing evidence in support of this Bill.
The Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Brougham, Lord Srangford, and the Bishop of Norwich.
Mr. MEREWETHER, On behalf of the petitioner,
stated the case. The petitioner was the son of a respf ct-
able i..13-master, and Mrs. 11..iley, from whom he sought
been a sein—pre"-iss.
The parties having been fur some time previously ac-
quainted, were, on the 9th of October, 1848, married
at St. John's, Waterloo-road, without the consent or
knowledge of the father of the petitioner, he being then
only nineteen years of age. Mr. Bailey, set., on being
acquainted by a letter from his son that he had =flied
the daughter of Captain Newton, of Tunbridge Wells,
went down to that place to make inquiries, but was un-
able to discover any such person at Tunbridge Wells.
This he communicated to his son, and the consequence
was that an immediate separation took place between
the parties. An allowance of 7s. a week was afterwards
paid to Mrs. Batley by her husband, she having sum-
moned him before a police magistrate to provide her
with a maintenance. It appeared, however, that she
afterwards fell into evil courses, and her husband having
discovered her in an act of adultery, instituted a suit
against her in the Ecclesiastical Court for separation, in
which he had been succes.ful, and had subsquently
taken these further steps to obtain a complete divorce.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to call witnesses.
Mr. F. Owen, a clerk in the Ecclesiastical Court,
proved the serving of the requisite notices and a copy
of the bill on Mrs. Batley.

Mr. G. Cleaver, parish clerk of St. John's, Waterloo-
; road, produced a copy of the register of the marriage of
the parties on the 9th of Oct , 1648.
Mrs. Anne Humphries, examined by Mr. MEREvvE-
TMER—Was present at the marriage of Mr. Batley and
' Miss Newton. I knew both parties before the marriage.
Miss Newton lived in my house, she was a sempstress,
and earned her living by taking in needlework from dif-
ferent shops.
By the Lord CHANCELLOR—She was a little gay, but
I never saw her guilty of any immoral conduct while she
resided with me.
By Lord BROUGHAM—She kept early hours, and al-
ways came alone. My house was always a well-con-
ducted one. The petitioner frequently visited her for
more than a year before their marriage, and after the
marriage they both came back to my house,
Where they remained a week, until the petitioner left
Mrs. Batley and did not return.
Mr. R. Batley, examined by Mr. MEREWETHER—I
am the father of the petitioner. His marriage took
place without my consent or knowledge. He was not
then twenty. I learned it by a letter from himself on the
same day, in which he informed me that he had married
, the daughter of Captain Newton, Clarence-terrace,
Tunbridge Wells. On the 16th f October I went 1
• down to Tunbridge Wells. I found a Clarence-terrace,
but no Captain Newton, nor did I discover any such
person in the whole town. Informed my son of the re-
sult of my inquiries.
Mr. Lewis Martinelli, examined by Mr. MERE.
weTnEn—l am a coach-builder in Albany-street,
Regent's-park, and on the 16. h October. 1848, I ac-
companied Mr. Batley in his unsuccessful search after
Captain Newton. We found no such person there.
On the 6th of June, 1849, I went with the petitioner
and a person named Barnes, to Brook-street, Newing-
ton. We took our station opposite a particu-
lar house in that street, where we waited
a considerable time until we saw a man and woman en-
ter together. In a short time we followed them in, and
Went up to the first floor, where we knocked, and a fe-
male voice cried out, " Who's there?" Barnes answered,
'' It's me." The voice cried out again, " Who's me?"
Barnes answered, " Iz's me—Tom." Young Batley,
however, put his shoulder to the door, forced it open.
. and we all three entered. We there found a man and
woman in bed together. The mall leaped out of bed lied
put himself in a fighting attitude. [By Lord Betoucinem
—lie had only his shirt one! The woman on seeing us
covered her head with her clothes, and on Barnes and
Batley trying to uncover her to see who she was, she
slid down under the clothes till she came out at the bot-
tom of the bed. She was also undressed. I saw her
distinctly, and I have no doubt she was the same woman
that we had seen enter the house shortly before. I also
saw her afterwards in Brunswick-street, Hackney-road,
where I went with the elder Mr. Batley. She then
, answered to the name of Mrs. Batley.
By the LORD CHANCELLOR—After we had identified
Mrs. Batley we left her in the room along with the man
whom we had discovered with her, and set no further
watch on her. We had been in Brook-street on a pre-
vious evening on a similar errand, but without success.
Mr. T. Barnes examined by Mr. MEREWETXER—I
accompanied the lust witness and Mr. Batley to the hou-e
Brook-street. When we entered the room we saw a
an and woman in bed together. The man jumped out
of bed, and Mr. Batley cried out to him, " You're in bed
bed vith my wile. ie
I helped Mr. Batley to pull down the
clothes, to see who the woman was. I had never
aleji her before, nor have I since.
faellld BitouolitAnt observed that there was yet no satis-
`° Y evidence to show that the woman found there
waatrs. Batley.
willtner.B.Mgret wETHEa reminded their Lordships that the
° Martinelli had identified the WOMEIR as the same
person he
el
answered hod afterwards seen in Brunswick-street, who
I Counsel then tiesT me of Mrs. Batley. The Learned
ed--
Mrs. Humpe:iaes
who said that she had answered
1
the door when
Nlr'. Martinelli called, and had shown
him i •
where nto a room
ere Mrs. Batley was. Thej person
' he there saw was Mrs. Batley.
S
i h°use et
aea
nt Bassett, L 9, deposed that the particular
named was, and had been, for a considerable time
a common brothel.'
This was the evidence in support of the Bill.
otlLereerdd
tßoltsohb.oel!e
!it suggsted that no evience had been
birth and parentatnat Mrs.e Batley had misrepresented her
ge, tte was imputed.
• Mr. MaltawnTilea. said that there would be a diffi-
',l culty in doing this, and
''
Mrs. Batley and her
• the communication was between
" 4oebandi and it would he impossible
J tocall him
• to prove it.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that since the a sin of the Act
of last session he thought
to 11 the petitioner it would l) as
g him
to
awitn. be competent for
CA
r., t
baying
Mr. Batley, J°°
"thought the
petitioner, was en ed,
but an after ce-eirred to theth Noblecall and Learned Lord, that actions of crire, con, and breach of
promise of marring were specifically %zeepe
t d, be was
e
not examined.
of 7,, per week, and dated from the 9th
i Mn. Batley, senior, recalled—The allowance made to
AI .Batley was
,
'f; of November, 1849.
!1 The LoRD CHANCELLOR said it appeareft to him to be 1 neer nary that their Lordships t°
me
east take time
shout I at I
had been in
to consider, if not also require some further evidence
this case. No evidence whatever x brought
impropriety et
e_.
before their L dh. to hew any
ur s ips, chew
duct before her marriage which could Justify the petj_a
ti • as he had done.
The
in separating from her so early
ii s of some eh cep_
•uhe petitioner himself had been guilty' the time of
lion in representing himself of full age at
hill "rri4ge. and it was a remarkable fief,
that the age
of sight,
of Mrs. Batley had been studiously kept out
that
arid they had, therefore, a rig xht to essaine, taking
feet together and also the absence of center
01 to
Prove previous misconduct, that she was not of
e
age such as would lay her open to the charge
Of having taken advantage of the inexperience of a
31:°°th, and succeeded by her artfulness in entrapping
tm into a marriage. There was no evidence in the
cause to show any reason for, or to justify, the sudden
1 edeparation—separation he would not call it, but ratte r
saertion, for that vies a more fitting term—the desertion
of a wife by a husband a few days after marriage,
withoLut . the alightest ground of complaint. NV h' o
the eusnaue -
else could be pursued such a course as this what
expected but what had followed. • How
I was the woman to live? On the 4th of November 101-1
1 lowing she was driven to summon the husband who had
deserted her before a magistr
ate to compel him to pro-
de eher with a maintenance, and then, and then onl
week—y,
he rnade a provision for her, to the amount of 7s. a
a her business s; shillin a day fora woman who had given up
1 , thrown' herself out of employment, in order
to pit herself under the protectionand support of a
husband who had deserted her so soon after. What fol-
! lowed was but the necessary course of this. He was
not wishing to excuse the wife' acts, they were ineet-
ettsable; but he thought the consequences which had
happened were almost inevitable. His Lordship then
proceeded to comment on the conduct of the petitioner
and his friends in keeping so strict a watch
over the conduct of Mrs. Batley until they had disco-
vered her in the act of adultery, and as boon as they
had obtained that desired result, leaving her to follow
her own course, without taking any steps to ascertain
the name of the man with whom she was found. The
present case required very great consideration; on his
part that consideration would be given to it, an,l it tilt! re-
thinner had any further evidence to adduce, an opportu-
nity would be afforded him to do so.
Lord BROUGHAM entirely c eicurred 14 ith what had
fallen from his Noble and Learned Friend. He should
strongly recommend that if the petitioner had any further
evidence, he should not fail to produce it, particularly