The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-12 00:00:00

PEERAGES IN ABEYANCE

Lord REDESDALE called the attention of the house to
the subject of peerages in abeyance. The noble lord said
he regretted that the change of Government had prevented
any step from being taken in the matter; but he was still
a opinion that the question was one requiring considera-
tion, and that something should be done to prevent an un-
necessary occupation of the time which should be devoted
to judicial business. -
Their lordshipa adjourned at ten minutes to 8.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
DIVORCE COURT BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 5, giving the judges of the court power to sit
with closed doors,
Mr. E. JAMES moved the omission of the clause. He
said the power proposed to be conferred was not
possessed by any other judges in the country. It
was true that in the Court of Chancery, where there was a
case involving delicate family details, it was suggested by
the judge that it should be heard in camera, but he had
the authority:of a learned friend, in extensive practice in the
Equity Courts, for asserting that the practice was
objectionable. Having adverted to the case of
the trial of Horne Tooke, when Mr. Perry, the proprietor
of the Morning Chronicle, was taken into custody for con-
tempt of court in publishing from day to day the proceed-
ings in that memorable trial, after an insruction by the
judge to the effect that the evidence should' not be
published until the close of the trial, and to the
conduct of the press, which, at the request of Lord Camp-
bell, abstained from making any comments during the trial
of Palmer, he contended that the effect of sitting with
closed doors would be attended with most injurious
effects. In the first place it would excite a prurient
curiosity on the part of the public, and perhaps, as
had taken place in other cases, garbled accounts
of the proceedings would be published, and for which no
one would be responsible. He called on the Attorney-
General not to press the clause, and he was sure the house
wsuld not sanction its adoption. (Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the clause, as
being calculated to repress morbid curiosity, and to act
beneficially in regard to suitors in the Divorce Court.
Mr. AYRTON supported the amendment, and strongly
denounced any secret tribunals in this country, which he
characterised as being suited only to the Chancery of
Austria or the Court of the Pope of Rome.
Mr. BRADY and Mr. H. BERKELEY supported the amend-
ment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the eommunication
to the judge would be made by the plaintiff. He was sorry
for some of the observations which had been made in the
course of the debate, as, for instance, when the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for the Tower Hamlets in-
sinuated that a difference would be made between the rich
and the poor. (Hear.) Let the house decide the matter as it
thought proper, but he hoped that such remarks as that
would be avoided. As the clause was inserted at the sug-
gestion of the learned judge, he should be obliged to trouble
the house to divide on the subject. It was not asked that
the Court should sit literally with closed doors ; for the pro-
ceedings would take place in the presence of the bar, of the
jury, and of the solicitors of both parties.
Mr. J. LOCKE opposed the clause, and said that while
the words of it gave the Court powerto sit with closed doors,
if public decency demanded it, the Attorney-General had
supported the clause on quite another ground, viz., the
annoyance which publicity would cause to individuals. He
hoped the house would not pass such a law ; for if they4iid
they could not stop there, but must extend it to all the other
courts, to soma of which, in fact where the pleadings would
show what the case was to be, it was far more applicable
than it was to this court.
At the suggestion of Sir M. PETO the ATTORNEY •GENZ-•
RAL eventually withdrew the clause.
Clause 6 was agreed to.
On clause 7,
Mr. E. JAMES moved the omission of the clause which
proposed to give the Attorney-General the power of insti-
tuting a preliminary inquiry in undefended causes, so as
to prevent collusion. It would create a great deal of de-
lay and additional expense, and it did not give the Attor-
ney-General the power to ask the petitioner, or any one
else, a single question to be answered upon oath. (Hear,
hear.) The clause was altogether useless. The judges
of the court had the power now to call the petitioner and
co-respondent before them, and examine them as to whether
there was colluston ; but the Attorney-General had no
power of the kind, and this clause did not give him any.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said many cases where
the petition was based on a charge of adultery were unde-
fended, and the court only anew what it was told by the
petitioner. Great danger therefore existed that divorces
would be obtained on fictitious evidence, and also by means
of collusion. Many persons thought, therefore, that some
officer should be appointed to assist the judge in undefended
cases where there was no one to contradict and defend the
case. Such cases it was proposed to refer to the Attorney-
General. In many of these cases it would be easy for the
Attorney-General to see whether it was a sincere and true
case or not. He thought that in this class of cases the help.
less position of the judge, of which every one was conscious
who had heard one of those undefended cases, would be
greatly relieved by such assistance as it was now proposed
to give him. This clause was considered particularly valu-
able by the House of Lords, and especially by those mem-
bers of it who had been engaged judicially in inquiries of
this class, and who were consequently well aware how fre-
quently these cases were got up by means of collusion. He
thought this arrangement would frequently prevent the
judge from being imposed upon, and he hoped the commit-
tee would adopt it.
Mr. MELLOR said the clause provided for the reference
of these matters to the Attorney-General, but it made no
provision for any regular course of procedure before him,
and he was not aware the Attorney-General at present had
the power to examine witnesses upon oath, or to obtain any
other information than that which they obtained from the
witnesses willingly.
Mr. AYRTON explained that what he had intended to
say at an earlier period of the debate was merely that per-
sons of distinction were more opposed to publicity than
persons in humbler spheres. To. that opinion he still
adhered. (Hear, hear.) The double investigation now
proposed would be costly, and in many other respects ob-
jectionable. The Attorney-General would be obliged to
delegate the powers now proposed to be conferred upon
him to some one else, as it was impossible he could make
these inquiries himself. The Court had the power to exa-
mine parties, with the view of preventing collusion, and
when the Court had tried to do this and failed, it would bo
time enough to ask the house for further powers.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. E. JAMES moved to insert after clause 6, the fol-
lowing clause :—" The Court, after a final decree of nullity
of marriage, or dissolution of marriage, may inquire into

the eiristenceld ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements,
made on thefparties whose marriage is the stibjeet of the
decree ; arid may make such orders, with referenee to the
application of the whole or a portion of the property settled,
either for the benefit of the children of the marriage, or of
their respeetiVe parents, as to the Court shall seem fit."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered there wo*
be difficulties in vesting such powers in the Court, but
thought, if an arrangement as proposed could be made, the
result must work beneficially.
After some conversation, the clause was agreed to.
Mr. CRAUFURD moved the following clause, which
was agreed to :—" The right of appeal to the House of Lords,
given by the fifty-sixth section of the recited act, shall ex-
tend to all sentences and final judgments on petitions under
the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858."
The bill was ordered to be reported as amended.
The house having resumed, the report was made, and the
bill read a third time and passed.
SALE OF GAS BILL.

The house went into committee for consideration of the
Sale of Gas Bill as amended. Some further amendments
were made; and the bill was reported, read a third time and
passed.
THE BOROUGH OF WAKEFIELD.

In the sitting of the House of Commons, on Wednesday,
a motion was made and agreed to that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be
graciously pleased to direct that a Royal commission do
issue to inquire into the alleged corrupt practices in the
borough of Wakefield at the late general election, but the
address could not be presented without the concurrence of
the Lords, and a conference with their lordships was ac-
cordingly requested. Their lordships having signified their
assent, the followingmembers were accordingly nominated
to represent the Commons as members of the conference,
namely, Mr. Forster, Sir George Grey, the Solicitor-Gene-
ral, Mr. Griffith, and Mr. Bailie Cochrane. These hon.
members accordingly-proceeded to the Conference Chamber,
and there met the appointed peers. '

On the return of ilie members of the Conference to the
Commons,
Mr. FORSTER appeared at the bar of the house, and
reported that their lordships had assented to the Commons'
request that they unite in the presentation of an address to
the Crown for the issue of a commission.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS BILL.

On the motion that the bill as amended be considered,
Mr. KNIGHT rose, and was calling attention to the
provisions of the bill, of which attorneys and solicitors had
to complain. and which were the concoction and production
of the Law Society, sitting in Chancery-lane, when an hon.
member moved that the house be counted.

" The count" accordingly took place, and there being
only 28 members present, the house adjourned at half-past
seven o'clock.

THE FORTIFICATIONS OF ANTWERP.

" Has Belgium a right to fortify Antwerp ?"
Such is the somewhat curious thesis which is now
in discussion between the press of Paris and the
press of Brussels. The Patrie and the Constitu-
tionnel incline to the opinion that fortifying the
harbour of the great Belgian seaport is very like
an insult to France. This is so extravagant a pre-
tension that we should have thought it an unmean-
ing impertinence of certain individual writers, if
the Belgian Government had not appeared to take
a different view of it, and, published in the Inde-
pendance Beige a semi-official reply. At first sight
it appears impossible to understand that France can
see cause of umbrage in a neutral Power performing
its duty by keeping itself in a position to make its
neutrality respected. France might be supposed
to see a pledge of peace in every new stone put upon
the rampart of Antwerp, and every new protection
added to its harbour. So far as the records of his-
tory extend, the soil of Belgium has been the cock-
pit of Europe. Every town recalls to mind some
one or more great sieges. Every name suggests
the turning point of some great war. Every district
has given place and title to some mighty battle.
Dig where you will, you may turn up the bones of
Austrians, and Spaniards, and Dutch, and French,
and English; look where you may over those rich
flats, you will see towns that remind you of old
bloody histories, such as Namur, and Mons, and
Ghent, and Bruges, and Liege. Walk or ride hither
and thither over the well-tilled flats, and you will
find yourself passing corn districts and villages
bearing such names as Landau, Ondenard, Fontenoy,
Jemmapes, Malplaquet, Ramilies, and Waterloo.
The topography of Belgium is but a jumble of the
histories of European slaughter. Fertile to its own
sons, and affluent in rich Flemish towns, it js a place
of blood to the stranger. It has been walled up
by general consent ever since 1831. No more
fighting is to be allowed on those premises. The
Belgian Government is just now repairing the
wall. It might have been expected that France
would look on approvingly. A comfortable house-
holder would certainly say " Well done" to his
neighbour if he saw him repairing his dilapidated
shutters and putting a new chain to his door.
France does not intend to break into the house;
France has no design upon the silver forks ; France
does not intend to steal into the plate closet in the
dark, or force a way into it on a sudden. Why,
then, do those writers whose names are supposed to
carry an authority which certainly neither the wit
nor the wisdom of their writings would alone de-
serve come forth to tell us that France is not af-
frighted, but afflicted, at the repair of the Antwerp
fortifications ? It is a question difficult to answer.
Perhaps, after much meditation, we may, how-
ever, guess at the cause of solicitude to our allies.
It is a sensitive regard for England and her safety
which dictates this jealousy of the Belgian defences.
True friendship is always suspicious. France sus-
pects Belgium of a secret intention of conquering
England. All the sayings of the old Napoleon are
being now coined into proverbs. The Great Em-
peror declared that Antwerp was by its situation
" a loaded pistol pointed at the heart of England."
Las Casas' Reports of the Conversations at St.
Helena are no w the Sibylline book in which France
reads her immediate destiny. The French are re-
membering that Napoleon chose Antwerp as the
central point where the chief arsenal for the sub-
jugation of England should be established. The
Independance Beige refers its French oppenents to
the archives of the French War-office for details of
the plans by which Napoleon made Antwerp the
greatest naval station on the Continent, and by
which he proposed to extend its harbour and forti-
fications to most gigantic dimensions. We read in
Las Casas that Napoleon even attributed his over-
throw to the pertinacity with which he adhered
to his design of keeping this " pistol charged.
against England," for it was his disinclina-
tion to part with Antwerp which prevented
his concluding a peace at Chatillon, He in-
tended, he said, to have made it by sea a point
whence a mortal stroke could be dealt against
his great enemy, and by land a fortress strong
enough to receive an army in case of defeat, and to
sustain a year of open trenches. The Belgians in-
sist that they are not about to do nearly as much
as this; but France is suspicious and afflicted.
France is affectionately unwilling that Belgium
should retain in her hands this " pistol charged
against the heart of England," and that she should
keep so firm a grasp of it that no one can take it
from her. She might make a bad use of it. She
might let it off, and England might be severely
hurt. To England this fortified harbour must be
a perpetual menace ; to Fiance the land fortifica-
tions are a perpetual insult—to put up bars and
bolts and to lock street doors is an imputation upon
the honesty of the neighbourhood. Surely it ought
to be sufficient for Belgium to know that France
has no intention of making any attack upon her ?
It is true that the old Napoleon, in the same con-
versation in which he told Las Casas that Antwerp
was to have a province, a little kingdom, added
" France without the frontier of the Rhine and
Antwerp was nothing ;" but we are not to under-
stand that France is going to work out her Sibyl-
line book all at once, and Belgium ought to be con-
tented with the word of a French Emperor, and
not to take these impertinent precautions against
France, or to make these offensive demonstrations
against England, the ally of France. It leads to bad
results to doubt what Napoleon 111. says. Francis
Joseph doubted the peaceful intentions of the Em-
peror, and he was punished for his incredulity by
a war=a war which we are now come to wider-
stand had no other purpose than topunish Austrian
incredulity. " Raze your fortifications, and I will
spare you ; build up defences, and I will test them."
So the Belgians, if they are well advised, will draw
the charge and blow out the priming from that
pistol so dangerous to England.
Of course we are greatly obliged to our careful
and watchful friends. We should hardly have dis-
covered the danger if they had not pointed it
out so forcibly. Nor, indeed, now that we
are made to see it can we tell how to avoid it.
The Belgians will, if we join in this remon-
strance, tell us, probably, that France, whom no
one threatens, and who can never require to put on
armour, unless for aggressive purposes, has fortified
PEiris , that Cherbourg, which was the twin brother
to Antwerp in the love of Napoleon the Great, has
been only lately completed; that we English, who
have never known a foreign invasion since the time
of William the Norman, are fortifying our chief
outports ; and that the advantages which Napoleon
saw in fortified Antwerp are equally valuable to
the natives of the country in which it is now the
only great fortress. We confess we should have
some difficulty in meeting these.arguments. They
would possibly also urge that the word of an Em-
peror of France is, after all, only the word of a
mortal man, and that a consistent series of prece-
dents teaches how immediately France falls into
her periodical spasm of republicanism the first
thing she does is to move an army into the Low
Countries and besiege Antwerp. They will tell us
also that these defences are not against France or
against England, but against all the world ; that
Belgium builds her fortifications as a herald buckles
on his sword, not dreading an attack from a civi-
lised enemy, who would of course respect his sacred
character of a guaranteed non-combatant, but as a
defence against any chance brawler or robber ; and
the Independance Beige does urge that if a Belgian
fortification is an insult, a Belgian army must be a
mortal offence. We must confess that, with all
kindly appreciation of the interest taken in us by

our Parisian friends, we cannot see that we are
aggrieved, or that they are insulted by these Ant-
werp fortifications. Of course, it is very unpleasant
to have a loaded pistol pointed at you by any one,
but it might be in more formidable hands than
those of Leopold.—Times.