The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-23 00:00:00

SHERIFFS OF IRELAND.

The Earl of WINCHILSE A moved fora return of the
persons returned by the Judges to serve the office of High
Sheriffs of the different counties in Ireland, together with a list
of the number of those actually appointed.
The House then adjourned till. Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, ArilL 22.
The SPEAKER tz,ok the Chair at a quarter before 4 o'clock.
DARTFORD AND CRAYFORD CANAL.
Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition from an in-
dividual against this Canal Bill. The Bill, as proposed,
would make a most violent invasion on the rights of property,
and he therefore hoped that it would not be allowed to pass.
Mr. G 0 ULBURN held in his hand a petition from Cray-
ford to the same effect, but as the Bill would be brought under
discussion in the course of the evening, he would not make
any observations on presenting this petition.
Mr. MANGLES was requested to support this petition,
and did so most cordially. The petition was then laid on the
table.

ABBOTSBY ENCLOSURE BILL.
On the motion of, Mr, ROOPER, this Bill was read a se-
cond time.

ALVES'FON ENCLOSURE BILL.
On the motion of Mr. G. BERKELEY, this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
HODGES' DIVORCE BILL.
Mr. T OOKE moved that the Order of the Day be read
for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. DIVETT said that the House would recollect that
when his Hon. Friend the Member for Truro, on a former
occasion proposed some resolutions with reference to the pro-
ceedings in a Divorce Bill, he (Mr. Divett) stated that it was
his intention, on the first Order of the Day being read, to move
certain resolutions, the effect of which would be to put an end
to the practice of examining witnesses at the Bar of the House.
—( Loud cries of " Hear.") On that occasion his Hon. Friend
stated that it might lead to inconvenience to hold out any thing
like a threat against any particular case, but in moving
these resolutions he could state that he did so without
the slightest acquaintance with the circumstances or the
parties in this case. From what he had seen of the
nature of these examinations he was convinced that they were
calculated to produce feelings of disgust, and in no degree to
effect justice. He knew that it would be said that in another
place more justice was done, and he believed that judicial inves-
tigations were conducted there with considerable care. But
he was hostile ,to the whole proceeding. He thought that
they ought to be exclusively confined to the Judges in the
Courts of Law. Under the present system, power was given
to individuals of great influence to get Acts of Parliament to
dissolve marriages, which was utterly denied to poorer classes.
He was not disposed to go the length of saying that
it was so in all cases ; but in the greater number parties came
there with anything but clean hands. In many cases there
was the grossest collusion, and the parties who were most
guilty, succeeded to the great inconvenience and expense of
those who were most innocent. He had the greatest confidence
in the females of this country, and he believed that the greater
number of divorces were caused by the misconduct of the other
sex. He did not wish to detain the House by going at any length
into the subject, with a view to show that the practice of di-
vorces was not conducive to public virtue, or the morals of
the community. His object was to remove the mockery of ju-
dicial investigation, which under the present system went for-
ward, and he would feel bound to take the sense of the House
on the question. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving
the resolutions of which he had given notice.
Sir R. INGLIS did not object to the resolutions as throw-
ing obstacles in the way of parties seeking redress by divorce
in that House, but he thought it would be legislating ex post
facto, and calculated to interfere with measures already in
progress. He suggested to the Hon. Member for Exeter
to withdraw his motion, as it would be taken to refer to a
particular case, and that he should take the sense of the
House upon it as a general abstract proposition to
tale effect in a future Session. Bills were brought
into the other House upon the understanding that the present
system would not, during this session, be interfered with. He
thought it would be unfair to take the opinion of the House on
a subject of which no notice had been given, and he, there-
fore, trusted the motion would be withdrawn.

Mr. EWA RT cordially concurred in the general principle
laid down by his Hon. Friend, the Member for Exeter ; but
be also agreed with the Hon. Member for Oxford, that it
would be better to bring in a general measure on the subject.
Mr. TO 0K E expressed himself to the same effect.
Mr. DIVETT then withdrew his amendment.
The House then went into a Committee of the whole
House, Mr. TOOKE in the Chair.

Mr. D. PoLLocK, as Counsel on behalf of the petitioner,
was then called in. Several witnesses having been examined,
the Bill was read a second time.
BRITISH ALKALI COMPANY.

An HON. MEMBER having moved the further consideration
of the Report of the Committee upon the British Alkali
Company,
Mr. HAW ES objected to the Bill. It appeared to him to
confer peculiar and exclusive privileges, and as a Bill brought
in by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had been re-
jected upon that very ground, he did not see how the House
could assent to the present one.
Mr. RICH ARDS contended that the Bill conferred no
peculiar privileges upon the Company. The Hon. Member
having referred to the details of the measure, observed that
there was not the slightest scintilla of evidence to shew that
any injury would result to the public from it. He complained
of the prejudiced view which the Hon. Member for Lambeth
bad taken of the measure. _

. Mr. HUME regretted that the time of the House should
be taken up in discussions of such a nature. If there was no-
thing exclusive in the present Company—if there was no well-
founded objection to the Bill, let it be at once agreed to. He
hoped the Right HOB. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
inform the House upon these points.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regretted
that his Right Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of
Trade was not present, as he was better acquainted with
the details of the measure than himself. So far, however, as
he was acquainted with it, he was not aware that it gave any
exclusive privileges to the Company.
Mr. HUME would not oppose the Bill, in the hopes that
the President of the Board of Trade would be in his place at
the next stage of the Bill, so that a regular understanding
might be come to, in order that the time of the House might
be saved.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Mr. H. DARE presented several petitions in favour of the
South Durham Railway.
DARTFORD AND CRAtYFORD CANAL BILL.
Sir W. GEARY presented a petition in favour of the
Dartford and Crayford Canal Bill. The Hon. Member also
moved the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. HODGES had also a petition to present in favour of
this Bill, from the inhabitants of Dartford. The petition was
numerously and respectably signed.
Sir WILLIAM GEARY regretted very much that he
had not been in the House when a conversation took
place relative to this Bill. He had received a state-
ment from those who opposed this Bill, but he was

.)-.__