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

N.E., fresh.—Arrd. Constance, Africa for Hamburgh;
Cora, Pernambuco for Copenhagen; Giraldo, Havani,ah
for Hambugh; Virginia, New Orleans for Stettin. Arrd.
from the River and sailed, Missionary, Mauritius; Clara,
Ban Francisco; Token, Pernambuco; Mina, Tobago;
Ewerretta, Grenada; Catherine Elizabeth. St. Vincent;
Catherine, St. Kitt's; Moro Csstle, Halifax; Frigin,
Quebec. Sld. Magellan, Hong-Kong; Tartar, Cape of
Good Hope; Louisa, Monte Video.
LITERPODL, MARCH 31.—Wind E.S.E.—Arrd. Re-
ginald, Heller, Calcutta; Alexander, Grant, New Or-
leans; Sea King, New Orleans; Greenoch, Mobile;
Switzerland, Charleston; Arctic steamer, New York.
Sld. 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 Bainbridge Ledge during
a fog this morning, and remains. Assistance has been
aunt to her.
POOLE, lilAnca 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.
PENzexcg.—Arrd. Baron, Malta to London, part of
crew mutinous.
BRISTOL, MARCH 31.--Wind N. L.—Arrd. Araby
Maid, Mauritius; Saldanha Bay. Sid. Surrey, Port
Philip, and Sydney, New South Wales.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(TMS DAY.)

BATLEY'S DIVORCL

Their Lordships sat to-day at eleven o'clock, for the
pnrpoP.e 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. I'iIEREWETHER, on behalf of the petitioner,
stilted the case. The petitioner was the son of a respect-
able job-master, and Mrs. Batley, from whom he sought
been ti!'r7e-iiiFsireiSlET.l3 15Filigute°,11:3 .marrit:Te with
The parties having been fur some time previously
ac-
qu 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. Batley, son., on being
acqcainted by a letter from his son that he had married
the daughter of Captain Newton. of Tunbridge Weds,
went down to that place to make inquiries, but was un-
able to discover any such person la 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 baying 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 snit
against her in the Ecclesiastical Court for separation, in
which he had been successful, and had Hobstquently
taken these further steps to obtain a complete divorce.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to call witnesses.
Mr. F. Owen, a clerk in the Enclesiattical Court,
proved the serving of the requisite notices and a copy
of the bill on Pars. Batley.

Mr. G. Cleaver, parit.ii clerk of St. John..:, Waterloo-
road, produced a copy of the regiver of the marriage of
the parties on the 9:11 of Oct , 1648.
Mrs. Anne Humphries' examined by Mr. MERE WE-
THER—Was present at the marriage of Mr. Batley and
Miss Newton. I knew both parties Wore the marriage.
Miss Newton lived in my house, she was a serapstresf,
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 ale ays 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. 11EREWETHER—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 bud married
the daughter of Captain Newton Clarence-terrace,
Tunbridge Wells. On the 16th Of October I went
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-
WETHER—I am a coach-builder in Albany-street,
Regent's-park, and on the 16th 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 linecked, 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, " It'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 man leaped out of bed and
put himself in a fighting attitude. [By Lord BROUGHAM
—He had only his shirt on. J The woman on seeing ue
covered her head with her clothes, and on Barnes and
Batley trying to uncover her to see who she was, she I
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-streer, Hackney-road, ,
where I went with the elder Mr. Batley. She then
answered to the name of Mrs. Batley.
By the LORD CHANCELLOR—Atter 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. MEREWETMER—I
accompanied the last witness and Mr. Batley to the house
in Brook-street. When we entered the room we saw a
man and woman in bed together. The mar. jumped out
of bed, and Mr. Batley cried out to him, " You're in bed
with my wife." I helped Mr. Batley to pull down the
bed clothes, to see who the woman was. I had never
seen her before, nor have I since.
Lord BROUGHAM observed that there was yet no satis-
factory evidence to show that the woman found these
was Mrs. Batley.
Mr. MEREWETHER reminded their Lordships that the
witness Martinelli had identified the woman es the Same
person he had afterwards seen in Brunswick-street, who
answered to the name of Mrs. Batley. The Learned
Counsel then recalled--
Mrs. Humphries, who said that she had answered
the door when Mr. Martinelli called, and had shown
him into a room where Mrs. Batley was. They person
he there saw was Mrs. Batley.
Sergeant Bassett, L 9, deposed that the particular
house named was, and had been, for a considerable time
a common brothel.
11'4 was the evidence in support of the Bill.
Lard It
offered tom:mum suggested that no evidence had bean
birth and a ow that Mrs. Batley had misrepresented her
Mr. 14_srentage, as was imputed.
in doing IFr_nea said that there would be a diffi-
culty
ars. and the communication was between
Mrs. Batley
call him to
prouveen t
tousband, and it would he impossible
Lord BROUGHAM said,t that since the passing of the Act
of last session he thought it would be competent for him
to call the petitioner as a witness,
Mr. Bailey, jun-, the
petitioner en d
but an after thought having occurred ,towas theth Noblecalle and
Learned Lord, that actions of crim
of were • eon. and breach of
promisemarriage specifically excepted, be was
not examined.
Mr. Batley, senior, rec d--The allowance made to
Mrs. B itley was "t, 7 " per week, and dated from the 9th
of November, 1849-
'Lon appeared The LORD CHANCE said it
to him to be
• Lordships should at least
to that their take time
require some finial
to consider, if not also er evidence in
had bee
this case. No evidence whatever .
.n brought chew any impropriety of
before their Lordships, to
could Justify -th econ-
duct before her marriage which
so
early as he had ePeantl-
tioner in separating from her
The petitioner himself had been guilty of some decep-
tion in representing himself cf full ago at the time of
, that the age
his marriage, and it was a remarkable fact
kept
of Mrs. Batley had been studiously out of eight,
and that
and they had, therefore, a right to essamf,
evidence to
fact together and also the absence o
not of an
prove previous misconduct, that she was
charge
to the age such as would lay her open_,a
of having taken advantage of the inexperience ni
youth, and succeeded by her artfulness in entrapping
t_
to to into a marriage. There was no evidence in h
e
cause to show any reason for, or to justify, the sudden
separation—separation he would not call it, but rather
desertion, for that was a more fitting term—the &cation
of a wife by a husband a few days after marriage,
without the slightest ground of complaint. When
the husband pursued such a course as this what
else could be expected but what bad followed. How
was the woman to live? On the 4th of November fol-
lowing she was driven to summon the husband who had
deserted her before a magistrate to compel him to pro-
vide her with a maintenance, and then, and then only,
be made a provision for her, to the amount of 7s. a
week—a shilling a day for a woman who had given up
her business, thrown herself out of employment, in order
to put herself under the protection and support of a
husband who bad deserted her so soon after. se hat fol-
lowed was but the necessary course of this. Ho was
not wishing to excuse the wife's acts, they were inex-
cusable; 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 soon 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 ahem she was found. The
present case required very great consideration; on his
pat t that consideration would be given to it, and if thele-
titionzr had any further evidence to adduce, an cpportu-
nitv would be afforded bim to do so.
Lord BRoUGHAM cn.irely c-,t,eulrk I with 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 te produce it, partioularlY