The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-04 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY: EVENING-, J ULY 4, 1856.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS=—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANOELLOR took his beat`op the woolsack
et 5 o'clock.

Lord MALMESBURY presented a petition. from
Chester on the subject of the Burial Act, and moved.
that it be referred to the committee now sitting on the
subject.—A greed to.
Lord DERBY presented a petition from a, place in
Lancashire, praying for the abolition of Chatch rates.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from inha-
bitants of the united dioceses of Gloucester and Bristol,
praying that the union of the two dioceses might
be dissolved. He entirely concivred in the prayer of
the petition, and he begged to the noble earl (Har-
rowby) whether it was in the contemplation of the Go-
vernment to dissever the two sees ?

The Earl of HARROWBY said the subject was at
present under consideratimi, but. It was not intended to
take any steps at present to separate the sees of Glou-
cester and Bristol.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said the, Govern-
ment had arrived at a determination which would give
general dissatisfaction. By the preient arrangement
Gloucester would still have a non-resident bishop.

SECOND READINGS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the following
bills were severally read a second time :—Morayshire
Railway, Renfrewshire Roads, Uttoxeter and Blyth
Marsh Road, Bardney Drainage, Glastonbury and
Bruton Railway, Severn Valley Railway, Lewes, East-
bourne, and Hailsham Roads ; Bournemouth Improve-
ment, Dean Forest, and Central Railway.
CEYLON RAILWAY BILL.
, This bill wag fella a third time:hfid passed.
WEE" 'ORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS

BILL.
• Lord RAVE•NSWORTELAKeyed the third-reading of
this bill.
The Bishop of OXFORD moved the insertion of a
clause giving discretionary powers to the magistracy to
commit offenders directly to these institutions, without
subjecting them to a short imprisonment. Such impri-
sonment would totally defeat the objects of the bill.
Lord RAVENSWORTH objected to the insertion of
the clause, but would not object to an amendment being
made with respect to children wide' a certain age.
After a few words from the Earl of CHICHESTER,
The Earl of HARROWBY said he did not think the
true meaning of these reformatories was clearly under-
stood. At present he should object to give the magis-
tracy such a discretionary power as that proposed in the
clause of the right rev, prelate.
After a short discussion their lordships divided, when
there appeared,
Contents
Non-contents l7
Majority —36
The clause was then added, and the bill was read
a third time.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
On the question that the report on this bill be received,
The Bishop of OXFORD said it would be a great
advantage K- actions for damages in cases of adultery
could be done away witb, and a fine inflicted on the of-
fending party. With respect to cases of divorce, the
line which this bill indicated would be a line fraught
with injustice to the great mass of the population, be-
cause it would snake la vful separation for all who could
afford to make application, by laying down as a broad
principle that it is the right of every man to procure a
separation in the eases contemplated by the measure.
He contended that it was not right to grant such a li-
cence to the rich, and trusted their lords ips w ould not
allow the bill :co advance another stage without striking
out the clauses, to which he objected (clauses 19 to 24
inclusive).

The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the bill, and
said the clauses to which the right rev.. prelate ob-
jected were the very clauses for which the hill had been
introduced. In cases where a woman had com-
mitted adultery such facilities ought to be given for ob-
taining a divorce as were not inconsistent with Scripture,
and the remedy ought to be given as a matter of right.
The object of the bill was to make redress easier and less
expensive. There were also certain cases in which re-
dress ought to be granted to the wile, but there was a
considerable difference between the two cases. If their
lordships thought their ought to be no divorce in any
case, then they would adopt the amendment of the right
reverend prelate.
Lord REIDESDALE said the question ought to be
treated as affecting the morals of the people at large.
The principle at present was that no such thing as a
divorce was known in law, but now it was proposed to
make divoros a legal remedy, and the result would be
that it woul d be necessary to send such cases to a cheaper
tribunal. He objected to granting increased facilities
for divorce, and should support the proposition of the
right reverend prelate.
Lord CAMPBELL said the subject had been fully
considered by the couni,sion, and if the bill should be
rejected their lordships could never entertain another
petition- for divorce. By the law of England for two
centuries rnaz:riages could be dissolved on proof of adul-
tery. No objection had been raised to the practice, and
he trusted that it would not be interfered with or over-
turned by thoir lordships' decision, but that tr,he facilities
now posses.s;e.d by the rich would be extended to the
poorer classes. It was an injustice to deny to the poor
the advantages granted to the rich, and he saw no reason
why persona should not sue in forma pauperis—in fact,
their lordships in one instance bad permitted it under
the present liiw. The Ecclesiastical Court did not dis-
solve marriages, because it had not the power ; but
he knew of no canon law that declared marriage indis-
soluble, and even Archbishop Cranmer bad stated that
marriages, under certain circumstances, should be dis-
solved ? The committee reported that there ought to
be a civil tribunal established with power to dissolve
marriages on proof of adultery on the part of the
wife. He could not see that an act of Convo-
cation was required for the granting of the powers
sought by this bill. He considered marriage was a civil
contract with which Parliament could deal, and as such

it was treated by their lordships when they allowed Dis-
senters to marry elsewhere than in the church.
The Bishop a ST. DAVID'S said that he bad no ob-
jection to the preset remedy for divorce being retained,
but the question was whether or not it should be ex-
tended to a larger class. He thought facilitating the
dissolution of the marriage tie would have a very preju-
dicial effect on society at large.'
The Earl 432 DONOUGHMORE denied that this bill
was
lawcontraryethe Churcht o t h
was
a
e law o f the
remnantChurchof
theand lawe
Scripture.fthe
The
Romish Church, enacted by an ambitious priesthood to
get power over the people, and by variety; quibbles to
levy taxes by means of dispensations all over Europe.
These laws were considered by many learned ecclesiastics
and laymen after the disruption of that Church, and
Archbishop Cramer was of opinion that divorces were
permitted by Holy Scriptures. Women in these times
were slaves. They were not considered as now the
equals of man, and had no civil rights. He supported
this bill as being necessary in this age, and hoped that
it would be carried further, and that the same common-
sense view of the question would be taken of it as pre-
vailed in Scotland, where it had not inflicted any injury
on the morals of the pe-"ple of that country.
The Earl of DESART approved te bill. If their
lordships proceeded with Ms kind of legislation, mar-
riage would become a sort of conjugal concubinage.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said that the law of
divorce for the purpose of re-marriage was clearly con-
trary to Scripture. St. Mark and St. Luke spoke of a
man being empowered to put away his wife for adultery,
hut not that he might re-marry, and St. Matthew said
that fur fornication or adultery a man or woman might
put the other away, and St. Paul desired the offending
parties to be reci nciled to one another. If marriage was
indissoluble by Scripture, riches oughtnot to exempt per-
sons from the law; but if it were dissoluble, the laws
ought to be relaxed in favour of the poor.
Viscount DUNGANNON considered the remedy pro-
posed by the bill would be worse than the disease. If
their lordships made divorce part of the law of the land,
he feared it would have the effect of creating confusion
in society and vast unhappiness arnongstthe community.
Of all the measures that had been introduced into their
lordships' house, this was by far the most fearful experi-
ment they proposed to try, and he very much questioned
if their lordships could practically deal justice to the poor
and the rich in the matter. The great safety to morality
was the indissolubility of the marriage tie, and as the
happiness of the country and the well-being of society
depended on it, he could not give his consent to the
seoond reading of the bill.
The Earl of DERBY was in favour of the principle
of the bill, but was not disposed to vote for its second
reading without the Lord Chancellor would undertake
to introduce one of the amendments of the right rev.
Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, if his amendments were re-
jected, viz., that persons obtaining a divorce should not
be able to contract fresh marriages, otherwise they would
have collusive marriages contracted and adultery prac-
tised to facilitate divorce. It was necessary their lord-
ships should guard against such evils being perpetuated
on society.
The Earl of ABERDEEN concurred in that opinion.
Such safeguard existed by the law of Scotland, and with-
out it in this bill he thought it would be very imperfect.
After a few words from Lord LYNDHUZST,
TheLo RD CHANCELLOR said that rather than lose
the bill, he would introduce the restriction mentioned.
Lord CAMPBELL Concurred in the necessity of such
a restriction being introduced into the bill.
After some remarks from the Bishop of OXFORD in
explanation, that as regarded the opinion of Archbishop
Crammer a portion of it only bad been quoted. That
rev, prelate was of opinion that the strictest means
should be taken to prevent the occurrence of divorce ; and
that in the case of a man who left his wife for two years,
if he could not satisfactorily explain his absence, be should
be imprisoned for life. (Laughter.) As regarded what
had been said of the unequal operation of the present
law, he considered it was better to make exceptions in a
universal law, than make a universal law that could
only be taken advantage of by the rich,
Their lordships divided—

Contents 43
Non-contents lO
Majority —33
The clauses were therefore retained.
Lord DENMAN moved to add the following words

to the 16th clanse:--" And fort er, the said court may
or ler such divorce in case of desertion, if not assured by
evidence that the. husband was net at the time of such
desertion,!or has rot been since, cohabiting with another
woman."

The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the clause,
which was negatived. without a division, and the report
of the committee was then agreed to:
'The Drainage (Private Advances).A.ct Amendment Bill
passed through committee.
The Annuities Redemption Bill Wits' read a third time
and passed.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.

The LORD ,CHANCELLORS:ja moving the second
reading of the bill, said that he understood that there
was no objection to its passing this stage. It was in fact
the same in principle as that which was passed last year
with respect to the University of-Piford ; and although
there were, on the part of some iltobleilords, objections
to two or three of the clauses,ind.*especially that which
proposed to confer upon Dissent4s Votes in the senate,
yet these points could be considered in committee.
The bill was then read a seconitime--
The Grand Juries Bill wairreportud with amendments.
The Statute? Not-in-use Itepeat Bill was read a third
time and, passed. . 1
The Stock in Trade Exemption. hill4as read a third
time and passed.

The -Commissioners of Supply:X. Sootlinci) Bill passed
through committee.
The Small Debts Impris rent Act Amendment
(Scotland) Bill was read a see time.
The Duke of ARC,- IrLL p4sentel a petition from the
East India Company against the Ikawab of suret Bill.
The house then adjourned akhalf-past eight o'clock.

on the subject, and it was under consideration.. There
was clause for the purpose inserted in a bill, but it was
thrown out in the House of Lords.
CRIME AND CRIMINALS.—STATISTICS.
Mr. LIDDELL asked whether the attention of the
Government.had been called to the necessity of collecting
and laying before Parliament further statistical informa-
tion respecting crime and criminals than is now furnished
in the annual returns supplied by the Home-office ?
Sir G. GREY replied that arrangements-were in pro-
gress by which he hoped more perfect statistical informa-
tion on.tbe subject would be laid before Parlament.
REMOVAL OF THE TROOPS FROM THE
CRIMEA, AND ARRIVAL IN LONDON. -
Mr. F. FRENCH asked the First Lord of the Ad.
miralty when the troops would evacuate the Crimea, and
what day the Guards would arrive in London ?
Sir C. WOOD said, with regard to the last question,
the third battalion of the Grenadier Guar.'s were
.coming home by the Princess Royal. Before he left the
Admiralty a telegraphic despatch was received that she
bad male her signal. With regard to the first question,
the whole of the forces had not left the Crimea, but a
portion of them were engaged in taking up the railway.
Every other man was brought away. Ample transport
was there long before the 30th June, and was now wait-
ing till the troops were ready to come away.
Sir J. SHELLEY said he wished to put a question
to the noble lord at the head of the Government on this
subject. He saw it stated in the papers that the route
had been determined by which the Guards would come
into London, that they were to arrive at Nine Elms, go
.through the squares at Pimlico to Buckingham Palace,
up Constitution-hill, and to Hyde-park. He understood,
from what he said on a former evening, that it was in-
tended to eye the inhabitants of Lopdon an opportunity
of Fleeing them, but if this were the route, the great
bulk of the people of London would not be able to
see them. He asked whether the noble lord had
any_olsiectliiiitilast_thajoute which- was taken by the
Emperor of the French—art-le-mg.:a the tsticfilarees'
Arms, and crossing over Westminster-bridge—should
be adopted on this occasion ?
Lord PALMERSTON said he believed the only ar-
rangements fixed with regard to the route to be taken
by the Guards on returning to their quarters in London
were, that they would come from Aldershot by the
South-Western Railway, and, of course, would get out
at the station. They would proceed from thence to
Buckingham Palace, and then to the park, to be in-
spected in line ; but the intermediate routes were not
yet decided upon.
J. SHELLEY—What day ?
Lord PALMERSTON—They will have to go to
Aldershot' first, and from Aldershot they will come to
London. Ample notice 7;1.1.1
Sir J. SHELLEY—WiII it be at the Nine Elms or
at the Waterloo station ?
Lord PALMERSTON—That I cannot state.
ADDITIONAL CHURCHES IN LONDON.—SUB-
ISCRIPTION FROM THE CROWN PROPERTY.
Mr. THORNELY asked if the vote of 10,0001. for ad-
ditional churches in London was intended to be brought
forward that evening?
Mr. WILSON replied that Government were disposed
to postpone the vote till next year, in order that due no-
tice might be given of it.
THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR.
Mr. BAILLIE asked whether Mr. Dallas had repre-
sented to her Majesty's Government that he had full
powers to settle the American dispute, or whether he
had any other powers which his predecessor had not ?
Lord PALMERSTON understood that Mr. Dallas
had full power to to discuss with her Majesty's Govern-
ment questions in relation to Central America. Whether
or not he had the same powers as Mr. Buchanan he (Lord
Palmerston) was not a ware.
GENERAL BEATSON.
Col. DUNNE said he bad seen in the Times a portion
of a correspondence between General Beatson, who
commanded the Osmanli horse, and the Secretary-at•
War. He wished to know whether there would be any
objection to lay that correspondence on the table•of the
house ?

Mr. PEEL said there would be an objection to the
production of the correspondence, which was not yet
completed.
THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND.
Sir J. PAKINGTON gave notice that he would to-
morrow put on the paper a question relative to some
support for the Bishop of New Zealand.
THE COUNTY COURTS.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that as a good many gentle-
men were staying in town for the County Courts Bill, be
wished to know whether it would be taken on Monday.
Sir G. GREY said he had spoken t the Attorney-
General on the subject, and he said that he would bring
it in in the course of a few days. There would be no
unnecessary delay in the matter.
WILLS AND ADMINISTRATIONS BILL.
Mr. MALINS wished to know whether it was in-
tended to proceed with the Wills and Administrations
Bid that night ? On Monday last be had a conversa-
tion with the Solicitor-General on the subject, and hie
learned friend had informed him that he had arranged
with the hon. and learned gentleman the member for
Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) not to bring it on, as he (Sir F.
Kelly) was obliged to go into the country to atten 1 a
cattle show or some county meeting. Siace he (Mr.
Malins) had come down to the house that evening, he
had heard to his amazement that the bill was to be
brought on. That would be a very inconvenient course
for him, as he wished to speak on the question, and he
had come down without his papers, on the faith of the
statement that it would be adjourned. (Laughter.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was exceedingly gorier
that the communication which had been made by him
should have given rise to the slanderous imputations
upon the hon. and learned gentleman the member for
Suffolk, that he preferred being at a cattle show to at-
tending to his duties in that house. (Laughter.) What
he stated to the hon, and learned gentleman when he
spoke to him on Monday was, that if the discussion in
which the house was then engaged terminated in time,
the Testamentary Bill would be taken that (Thursday)
night, although it was not the first order of the day.
There was consequently some misapprehension on the
part of his hon. and learned friend.
Mr. MALINS said he should move that the bill be
read a second time that day six months, as he had a
great objection to it.
CROWN LANDS AND CHURCH EXTENSION.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that a few minutes since the
Secretary of the Treasury stated in answer to a question
put to him, that the ♦ote of 10,0001. out of the Crown
lands for the purposes of Church extension was to be
left over for the present session. He (Mr. 'Williams)
had never before known such an attempt made to get
10,0001. by misrepresentation. It was to be granted
out of the Crown lands for the purpose of building
churches. Now, all the Crown property had been sur-
rendered to the public, and there was now no Crown
property available for churches, or any such purposes.
He thought it would be monstrous to bring forward a
vote of this kind to build churches in connection with
the Establishment, when the Church enjoyed property
amounting to millions per annum. They should take
example from the Dissenters, and provide for the build-
ing of their own churches out of their own pockets. In
the district he resided in they had built three or four new
churches at their own expense, and hail taxed them-
selves not only to pay for them but also to keep them
up. There was no other source than the public taxes
from which this vote could be made, and it was nothing
short of a misrepresentation to say that it was to come
out of the Church property.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to
propose that vote this session, and he should therefore
be wasting the time of the house if, under such circum-
stances, he entered upon its discussion. The hon. mem-
ber for Lambeth was quite mistaken as to the circum-
stances of the vote. When the proper time arrived the
circumstances would be laid fully before the house.
Mr. HADFIELD thought this was the first of a
series of measures for granting public money for Church
purposes. But for the watchfulness of the hen. member
for Lambeth this vote would have been persevered in,
notwithstanding the very &ethane objections that could
be urged against it.
ROAYL MILITARY ACADEMY.
Mr. RICH asked the Under Secretary for War if it was
the intention of the Government to continue the pre-
sent charge of 1251. a year for the education of the sons
of civilians at the Royal Military College•, when, as ap-
peared by the supplementary army estimate, the total
cost of a cadet does not exceed 751. a year ?
Mr. PEEL said the hon. gentleman had evidently
fallen into an error, caused probably by an estimate
which had been laid upon the table, and which was for
three-quarters instead of a whole year.
PRIZE MONEY.
Colonel DUNNE asked the intentions of the Govern.
ment as to advising her Majesty to grant compensation
to the army engaged in the siege for stores, &c., taken
from Sebastopol !
Lord PALMERSTON said that in former years, when
property taken from an enemy went to the Crown, an
equivalent was given in money to the troops who were en-
gaged in the capture. In the present case, the property
taken was so exceedingly small that, if divided, it would
not yield more than half-a-crown for each officer and six-
pence for each man. If granted, it would be considered
rather a mockery than a reward.
THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS OF THE ARMY.
Captain L. VERNON inquired of the Under-Secre-
tary for War whether it was inttn-led as a rule of promo-
tion in the Scientific Corps of the army that no subaltern
officer, however he may have distinguished himself in
that rank, can be advanced to a brevet maj, rity until he
shall have again subsequently distinguished himself i❑
the rank of captain ; and to call attention to the inexpe-
diency of such a regulation ?
Mr. PEEL said that, under certain circumstances, a
subaltern officer who had distinguished himself could be
advanced to a brevet majority.
Mr. BAILLIE thought the explanation given with
respect to the Military College of Sandhurst was very
unsatisfactory. He believed that the son of a civilian
could not be educated at Sandhurst much under 2001. a
year, and this excess went to keep up large salaries, for
which there was no occasion.
SUPPLY.
The house then went into c ecomittee of supply.
O❑ the vote of 6,9121. for works and furniture of the
British embassy houses abroad,
Mr. WISE considered this a moat improper and unne