The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

THE CASE OF WILLIAM AND MARTHA
BRIGHTMAN.

Sir JOHN TROLLOPE moved an address for copies of
the correspondence between the Secretary of State for the
Home Department and the Clerk of the Spalding Board of
Guardians, relative to prosecutions, at the last assizes for
the county of Lincoln, against William and Martha Bright-
man, for bigamy. The hon. baronet entered at some
length into the circumstances of the case, complaining
that the board of guardians had been saddled with the cost
of the prosecution, because the learned judge who tried the
parties refused to allow any expenses ; and, in passing the
slight sentence of one day's imprisonment, commented se-
verely on the conduct of the prosecutors for bringing such
a ease into court. It seemed that William and Martha
Brightman were married about 25 years ago, but they parted
on the day of their marriage, having never cohabited toge-
ther. The man got married to another woman, and having
four children which became chargeable to the parish, it waik
then ascertained that the man had been already married to
another woman who was still alive. Mr. Justice Willes
termed the prosecution " a persecution," passed a nominal
sentence of one day, and mulcted the board of guardians in
all the costs. Now he (Sir John Trollope) wanted to know
whether these were proceedings to be sanctioned by the Se-
cretary of State, and ought a judge of the land to use the
language which he had described ? He begged in conch'.
sion to make the motion for, the returns in question.
Sir G. C. LEWIS agreed that his hon. friend was justi-
.. . .

fled in bringing this question before the house. There
could, however, be no question upon the integrity of the
learned judge in this case. The question simply related to
the learned judge's discretion. The matter itself lay in a
very limited compass. The parties were married in 1838,
and a quarrel having ensued, no cohabitation took place,
and it was supposed by the parties that no marriage had
really taken place. This was of course`a vulgar error.
In 1842 both parties married again, and the children
of the husband by the second marriage becoming charge-
able on the parish, the board of guardians laid an indict-
ment for bigamy against the htisband, when a verdict was
given against him. Tho guardians of the poor of the
parish in question felt it their duty to bring a similar
action against the wife, whose :children by her se-
cond marriage became chargeable on the parish.
To this indictment she pleaded guilty. The judge
passed a lenient sentence, and made some remarks
upon the impolicy of indicting those persons under
the circumstances of the case. No doubt the learned judge
entertained a strong opinion on the case, and expressed him-
self strongly. No doubt it would havi3 been better if he
had abstained from making those remarks. It was not in-
tended he (Sir G. C. Lewis) supposed to censure by a vote
of thakhouse the language of the learned judge in question.
While-he (Sir G. C. Lewis) admitted that the learned judge
had been guilty of indiscretion in using the language in
question, still he must observe, that he had no doubt the
learned judge used them in the perfect belief that the in-
dictment ought not to have been laid against the parties in
question.

. Sir J. TROLLOPE said that under the circumstances
he begged to withdraw the motion.
-The motion was withdrawn accordingly.
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES ESTATES ACT
(1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. 'WALPOLE obtained leave to bring in a bill to ea•
tend the provisions of this act.
_ _ _

GUN AND MORTAR BOATS.

Sir F. SMITH moved for a select committee to inquire
into the circumstances which had caused the alleged de-
feetiye state of a considerable number of the gun and mor-
tar boats and vessels of the Royal navy.
IRREMOVABLE POOR COMMITTEE.

Col. DUNNE moved, that Lord Naas and Mr. Henry
Herbert be added to the select committee on irremovable
poor.

Mr. C. P. VILLIERS said he had proposed the re-ap-
pointment of the previous committee, except such as did not
get returned to this Parliament. He proposed to add the
names of Sir E. Grogan and Mr. Abel Smith.
The house then divided on the appointment of Lord
Naas, when there appeared—
For the motion 56
Against it 57
Majority against the motion —l
The announcement was received with cheers.
The committee was then nominated and appointed.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. SOTIIERON ESCO URT obtained leave to intro-
duce a bill under this head, and the bill was read
Pa first
time.
LANDS CL A.USES CONSOLIDATION ACT.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT also moved for and obtained leave
to bring in a bill to amend the Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act (1845) in that part relating to compensation for land ill
the shape of a rent charge.
The bill was read a first time.
SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES

WILLOUGHBY, the bill passed through that stage, and th e
house resumed.

SPIRITS BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) ACT

AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. RUSSELL moved the second reading of this bill,
which he said was intended to remove an anomaly in the
Irish Municipal Corporations Act with reference to the ap-
pointment of coroners. It had received the sanction of the
Irish Government.

The motion was agreed to.
INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.

The committee on this bill was resumed.

Mr. M'MAHON opposed the bill, which he said made a
great change in the ancient law of the country with regard
to the remedy of a guest against an innkeeper for lost pro-
perty left in his care. He would move that the chairman
do leave the chair.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said he had consented to the second
reading under the belief that innkeepers were labouring
under a grievance in the existing state of the law, which
ho did not upon inquiry find to be the case. The preamble
too, was rather strangely worded, inasmuch as it stated
that it was desirable to reduce the' amount of security at
present afforded to travellers. On consulting the law
officers of the Crown subsequently to the second reading,
and carefully examining the bill, he had come to the con-
clusion that it would be unsafe to make the proposed
change in the law.

The committee then divided, and there appeared—
For Mr. M'Mahon's motion . 4O
Against
Majority
The bill was accordingly lost.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
BILL.

This bill was read a third iims and pseud amidst loud
cheers.

SUPPLY.

Mr. MASSEY brought up the report of the Committee
of Supply,
On the vote of £2,500 for Malta Harbour,
Mr. KINNAIRD raised the objection that this small
sum was merely the prelude to a large draught on the Im-
perial Exchequer—a draught which he believed would ulti-
mately amount to £250,000. The Council of Malta had
formally• resolved to pay only a fixed sum, so that any
excess of expenditure would haye to be borne by the Impe-
rial thivernment. He would like to know whether the
rights of the navy in those waters would be secured after
all that outlay.

Sir H. WILLOUGMY asked whether there was any
ikelihood of the estimate being exceeded ?

Mr. WHITBREAD said that the greatest pains had been
taken to secure accuracy in the estimate ; and unless, any
unforeseen accident arose the work would be completed
without exceeding it. The local Government of Malta had
certainly passed a resolution restricting their liabilities to
half the amount of the estimate, but unless they would
consent to bear their share of the whole expense, whatever
it might come to, the Admiralty would limit the extent of
the work executed to the amount voted by Parliament. He
assured the hon, member that the rights of the navy were
fully secured.
1 The report was then agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
The report of the Committee on Ways and Means was
brought up and agreed to.
SIR J. BARNARD'S ACT, &c., REPEAL BILL.
This bill passed through committee,
COUNCILLORS OF BURGHS AND BURGESS
(SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
The House adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.