The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-18 00:00:00

THIRD READINGS.

On the motion ~f Lord REDESDALE, the Seinde
Railway and the Eastern Bengal Rail way (Amendments)
bills were read a third time and passed.

ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from the s'riar,hi,l iers in the Royal British Bank praying
that that portion of the Joint Stock Companies Bill
which bad reference to them might not be passed into a
law.

The Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amend-
ments in this bill were then considered. As the bill
was first framed the Tipperary Bank shareholders were
required to refund the 2s. dividend which they had re-
ceived, in order to share the advantages of the present
measure. The Commons did not think it was fair to
ask those judgment creditors to refund the 24., and
proposed amendments accordingly.
The LORD-CHINCELLOR made a further amend-
ment to the amendments, to the effect that the share
holders should not refund the 2s. He .coved, therefore,
that the Commons' amendments with an amendment be
agreed to.

Lord ST. LEONARDS was of opinion that the Com-
mons' amendosentq were such as ought to be agreed to.
Their lordships divided, when there appeared—
Content
Non-content 9
Maj
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.
The Commons' amendments to this bill were consi-
dered and agreed to.

EiULNVICFI COLLEGE BILL.
The-Commons' amendments to this bill were consi-
dered.

The Eari of HARROWBY moved that the Commons'
amendmenti to clauses 3,4, 5, and 6 be not agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

This hill as amended Was read a third time and passed.
BURIAL ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
This h 11 as amended was read a third time and passed
after the Earl of GBANTILLE had made certain amend-
ments, which were a reed to.

BOUNDARIES OF BURGHS (SCO rLAND) BILL.
This hill was read a third time and passed.
The Valuation of Land (Scotland) Act Amendment
Bill was read a tbird time and passed.
The Ecclesiastical Commission Biil passed through
committee.

The Consolidated Fund Approopriation, the Probate
and Letters of Administration (Ireland), the Parochial
Schoolmaster's (Scotland), and the East India Mutiny
Bills were read a first time.

Their lordships shortly afterwards adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'cl)ck.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lordl' Amendments to the Lancaster and Car-
lisle and Ingleton Railway 8,1 l were considered and
agreed to.

MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved that a select committee be
appointed to itrpect the Lords Journal relative to the
Mersey Conservancy Bill, which had passed this house.
The right hon. baronet having explained the objects of
the and its progress through this house ancl the House
of Lords up to its being referred to a select committee,
said that the object of the motion was to put an end to
the present bill, with a view of introducing another
bill this session, to be passed through is various stages
without dtlay, to give effect to the bill in the House of
Lord., changing the amount of compensation from
750,000/. to 1,500,000/.
Mr. J. EWART seconded the motion.
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,
The motion was agreed to and the committee named.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
The committee was resumed on this bill.
On clause 28, providing for the dismissal of petitions,
Mr. HENLEY asked for an explanation of the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the the 27th
and 28th clauses were proposed with a view of prevent-
ing collusion between the par.ies in uncontested cases,
and the 29th gave an =tended area of defence.
Mr. HENLEY moved the omission of the words
"alleged adultery," and the insertion in the'r place
"facts allPged," to make the clause consistent with the
27th clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the
amendment.
After a discussion in which Sir W. Ileathcote, Lord
John Manners, Mr. Ayrton, the Attorney-General,
Mr. I Butt, Mr. Henley, Mr. B.)ril, Mr. Wigram,
and Mr. Walmla, took part,
The amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. BOVILL moved an amendment :----That condo-
nation of adultery on the part of the husband should not
be an absolute bar to a di v'orce for subsequent adultery
on the part of the wife, but that it should be left to the
discretion of the c turt.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL accepted the amend.
ment, and it was subsequently agreed to by the Coal•
mittee.

Mr. H. INGRAM moved an amendment, prohibiting
a petitioner, whose petition has been dismissed from
again petitioning the court in the same ca.,,e within five
years. If parties aggrieved were allowed perpetually to
apply to the court it would engender the worst feelings
and destroy domestic peac,!. On the other hand a period
of five years was likely to cool down the passions, and
give rise to a reconciliation

Tne ATTORNEY GENERAL said that the appre-
hension of the hon. member was unfounded, because the
bill prevented a second application to the Court after a
decision in the same case.
After some discussion the amendment was negatived.
The clause, with amendments, was then agreed to.
Clause 29 decrees dissolving marriage.
Mr. M‘MAHON moved an amendment that adul-
tery, previou-ly committed by the petititioner, should
be a bar to obtaining a, divorce for subsequent acts of
adultery on the part of the husband or wife, as the
case might be petitioned against.
A discussion ensued, and the committee divided.
For the amendment
Against it:
Alsj rity
The arnetalinent was eonsequdntly lost.
Mr. MONSELL proposed to leave out the words
"such marriage ti be diss,l-led," for the purpose of in-
serting the words " sentence of judicial Reparation for
life." He thought it the best way of raisin, the impor-
tant question, that had not been cmsidered by the com-
mittee cr the house in connection. with this bill, whe-
ther they would give to the court about to be constituted
the power of granting divorc3 a vinculo, with power to
the parties to marry again.
Mr. WIGRAM rose to order. He doubted if it was
competent to raise the question after the committee had
passed the 25th clause.

- Mr. FITZROY said that the committee having de-
cided to give the new Court power to grant divorce by
the 25th clause, it could not be again raised.
Mr. MONSELL seid his oi'ject in wishing to take a
discussion on the question of divorced parties then was
to Pave time.
The motion being out of order was than withdrawn.
On the question that the clause stand part of the bill, THE DIVORCE BILL.
Mr. WALPOLE moved a proviso to the effl.ct that The house then went into committee on this bill.
the Court should not on an application from the husband Progress was resumed at clause 30.
1).1. divorce against the wife for adultery, grant or decree a Mr. HENLEY Raid that in clause 16 provision was
divorce
made that in all suits other than for a dissolu ion of mar-
"° -o:see where it was proved that the husband had pre-
Iv committed adultery without condonation on the riage, the court should proceed on the principle now
Pert of the W 1 .i.
~. acted on in the Ecclesiastical Court, and s, grant
meTnht,eaets.T, Te.OalkltlEY-.GENERAL opposed the amend- alimony and the means of carrying on a suit to a wife
pender.te lite ; but he did not find in this clause any pro-
-11
would L: 1! inconsistent with the principle of the tell_
nation to ard if they permitted divorce with condo- vision of that kind applicable to divorce a vineulo. He
extreme adoptcase,itsueh a proviso as this. To suppose an should move to insert :he word "alimony,"
tieroule be a hardship to refuse a hut- Lord LOVATNE moved, in line 8, to leave cut "way,
band a divorce
profligate wife because some if it shall think fit," and insert " shall."
twenty years before from
lira: committed an isolated act of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in divorce
adultery of which his w
were instituted against 11,;7as ignorant, till proceedings
zdilher agents had made the bills hitherto, according to the practice, the House of
Commons took on itself to award some means of main-
discovery, The husband
repented of his tenance to the wife, when the husband only was con-
error, and his subsequent coLetethave
his wife no cause of comphtint.havlntbweaens aßcTahesatsiotno cerned. But this clause referred to both parties, and he
give thought had better remain as it was. The bill, as it was
that might palely b . let, to the discretion
Lid J. RUS'iELL supported te clf the court. worded, did not throw on the court the necessity of
proviso, adopting the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts in
After :wile discussion the committee divided. The divorce, although it bad done so in cases oltjudicial sepa-
numbers were—
ration. The question was whether that practice was a
For the eroviso.. 4l
that
one to ba mairttineti. The result might be
Against it BO
nhoattdaewsiife might fall into the hands of evil advisers, and
Mojerity agaiest it
39 1 might U'e
applied for
a power for purposes of extortion. When
4.l7lwatitleerati the,elec
rapbuie
thatradivorce a vinculo inatricnonii, it was
Mr. 80-STILL moved an amendment, that " no de.
crse shall be issued by the Court where a petitioner shall '
its Procedure, as
that the court should be comeelled to adopt
have been guilty during the marriage of uni,,Fondriet or Buell a rule proposed.. It was better to leave this
neglect towards the other party to the tearrage." He
retion of the court is making rules for
Dower under the ele:).
urged that this discretion, which was similar to that
e.x feared that the court would have no
Ir. IeENL-e,„
a rule imperative on tne co
exercised by the House of Lords, should be granted to I A
i rmaatidoen,aipt provision on otnoothtnisHe did cot aeketo make such
the Court. f ' •
sub'
ject
iAnseatsheeslo6f tihu
deilcaivaal es
ehpsad.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL accepted the principle/
echtutto.aek hat in a suit for die-
of the words of the amendment, but thoueht them too
solving a marriage a woman should not be left without
general for the object in view. He would consent to
the introduction of words for withholding the decree i
.
where the adultery was caused by the neglect or miscon-
reasonable means of carrying on the suit,
duct of the husband. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—There was
give her Creme Mr. L'OVILL consented to the modification, and the moo law liatelity for a husband to maintain his COM•
amendie, n_r, so altered was inerteri in the clause.
Mr. BO VILL then rnov,d another amendment, that of carrying on a suit against him. Teat was a 4ns
f but there was none to compel him to
the ducii.; 40.111 u.t LC valatcj, "whore •
ore the parties peculiar t the I:.c' •-ias'ical Courts. li. Practice
4,, .L,4 , . e would cull. .

eider whether by any means an obligation to maintain a
wife pending litigation could be effected.
Mr. MALINS said when a woman had property why
should not the husband have a similar advantage ? Why
IA case of divorce ought she not to be compelled to make
a settlement for the benefit of childreni?
Lord J. MANNERS said he knew that such a case
had arisen, and he hoped the Attorney-General would
alter the clause so as to meet such a case.
Mr. BUTT said the case just alluded to was pro-
vided for in the 42d clause ; but the case put by Mr.
Henley was not provided for. He had given notice of
his intention to move an amendment, to the effect that
in the case where an innocent wife obtained a divorce,
the Court should have the power to award her a main-
tenance from the husband's property. If that was the
intention of the clause the words did not properly ex-
press that intention, and if that was not the intention of
the clause, he proposed to take the opinion of the com-
mittee on the point which he had submitted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would take
the matter into consideration.
The amendment was not pressed, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 31,
Mr. PULLER said that it made an important alte-
ration in the law of England, for whereas up to this time
adultery had not bead treated as a crime, this bill pro-
posed to abolish actions of trim. con., and give the
power of imposing on the adulterer a fine with caste.
The question for the committee to decide was, whether a
fine on the adulterer was sufficient, leaving the husband
or wife untouched. If the committee should think
proper to make the adulterer punishable by imprison-
ment, it would be eight to do so whether the proceeding
should be for dissolution of marriage or judicial separat ion.
He proposed to amend the clause, so as to make it run
thus :—" Whenever on any petition for dissolution of
marriage the adultery shall have been established, it shall
be lawful for the court to order the respondent and also
the co-respondent, if any, to be punished by fine or im-
prisonment, or by fine and imprisonment as if on convic-
tion for a misdemeanor." Previous to put' ing that amend-
ment, however, be proposed in a prev:ous line of the
clause to substitute the word "on" for the word "in."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL raid the question was
whether it should be competent to the court to impose
on the adulterer a pecuniary penalty, to be applied for
Ve benefit of the husband and children of the merrier,
or to make a provision for the unfortunate wife, and
whether the adulterer should be criminally punished.
He would not enter at any length into the question, be-
cause from the time of the Commonwealth all persons
had j wined in condemnation of the principle of making
adultery punishable as a crime. On three several occa-
sions the principle had been discussed in Parliament, in
1781, in 1800, and again in 1812, on a bill of divorce,
aecompanied with circumstances of singular atr city, on
an action for the seduction of a married woman by a
clergyman in Devonshire. The opinion of Parliament
was that it would not tend to advance the interests of
morality to treat adultery as a crime, and that to do so
woull overstep the limits of criminal jurisdiction. The
Government intended to resist any attempt to make
adultery the subject of ethnical punishment, and he
trusted the committee would negative the amendment.
Lord J. MANNERS believed the universal testimony
of history to be against the opinions of the Attorney-
General. The Homilies contained a table of the different
lava in which the crime of adultery was set down as a
crave offence and punished as such. It was so treated
by the Jew', the Egyptians, the Arabs, the inhabitants
of the north of Germany and several other countries, aid
in France both the guilty parties were liable to imprison-
ment. The bill might be characterised as a bill for the
encouragement and reward of the commission of
the crime of adultery, for it declined making the act rn
offence against social order, it allowed parties to marry
again, and it imposed a pecuniary fine, which, once
paid, would enable the adulterer to enjoy the fruits of
his crime. The effect of the bill, without some such
amendment as that now proposed, woul l be to encour-
age and not to diec.rurage the adulterer. A great deal
had been raid of the Reformatio Legum. Was it true
that Cranmer and his associates took the same view as
the Attorney-General, treating the crime merely as a
private injury ? The Reformatio Leg= condemned the
adulterer or adulteress to perpe oaf banishment or im-
prisonment. The bII treated this great crime with
favour and encouragement unknown in the rec irds of
the history of any other country. How would it operate
on different classes of the community ? The wealthy man
could pay a fine. The poor man would be unable to do
so, and would have to go to prison. The young and
wealthy seducer would be told—" Pay your money—aud
then you will be absolved, and may marry whom you
please." The poor roan would be told, " You must go to
prison, not because you have committed an offence, but
because you have not the means to condone it." And
yet this bill professed to place the rich and the poor on
an equality. It, however, c)mpletely failed in doing so,
and was a mere mockery of justice. The opinion of Lord
Lyndhuret and other eminent men was in favour of treat-
ing the offence as a crime, and he trusted the committee
would take the same view of the subject, and agree to
the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire.
Mr. I. BUTT said the committee would involve
themselves in considerable difficulty if on the present
clause they discussed the question whether adultery was
to be made a criminal offence. It would be an unprece-
dented thing in English law, on a civil proceeding, to
convict and punish a man for an offence of that kind.
What might be the consequence of carrying the amend-
ment of the hon. gentleman Why, a man, not know-
ing that he had committed an act of adultery, might be
visited with fine and impriionment, Tue clause in-
volved another point, and that was an inefficient sub-
stitute for the action of critic'. con. because a remedy would
be given only to those parties who had the means of pro-
ceeding for a divorce, and the action, which was the pro-
tection of the poor man's home, would be taken away.
It was absurd to make the punishment of a criminal of-
fence dependant on the accident of resort to other pro-
ceedings. It would set a bad example to the people to
say " the adulterer ought to be punished with imprison-
ment, but there is a shield round him, and he cannot be
so punished unless a suit for divorce be instituted." He
trusted the committee would not oa the present clause be
drawn into a discussion as to the propriety of making
adultery a criminal offence. If the question was to be
entertained let it be raised on a separate and distinct
clause, and then it could be fairly discussed.
Mr. M`VIATION observed that they were going to as-
similate the law of this country to thatof other countries.
In Scotland, by the old law, adultery was a capital of-
fence, and simple adultery was treated as a misdemea
nour. In France and the United States it was punish-
able by fine and imprisonment. In the year 1800 a bil,
passed the Lords making adultery punishable as a mil-
demeanour. It was a doubtful point a' the present mo-
meat whether adultery was not an indictal le offecc 3.
Mr. WIGRA.IVI suggested that it would be better to
lat "In" stand, and moved to insert some words that
would raise the question. It was not well to take a divi-
sion as to whether a word in a clause should be " in" or
"on.e

the grand jury, which was enjoyed by persons accu:ei
of the most trivial offences. ([Tear, hear.)
Toe amendment was then negatived.
Mr. M'MAHON thought the o'ause was now useless,
the question of costs being provided for in clue 48.
Nevertheless the clause was agreed to.

- -
On clause 32, " custody of children,"
Lori LOVAINE (for Mr. Drummond) moved to it-
Bert, instead of " the Court of Chancery," at the end of
the clause, "the parent promoting the suit, if such parent
shall have been free fr •m cruelty or criminality."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the amend.
ment. Of course the Court of ChaLcary would respect
the rights of the innocent parent, where that parent was
able to discharge the duties of guardian.
The ainendmnt was negatived.

Mr. Bur moved an amendment providing alimony
pendente lite, if the suit was one of divorce, in the same
manner as if it was for a judicial separation.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL would consider the
subject ; and
The clause was agreed to.
On clause 43—" Questions of fact may be tried before
the court."

Mr. M•MAHON moved the following proviso
" Provided also that, unless the court shall otherwise
order, the contested fact shall be tried in the county
where the adultery is alleged to have been cotnrnitted."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that that would
generally be the case ; but it would be convenient in
some instances to try the cause in London or Middlesex.
After some conversation,
Mr. M`MAHON withdrew his amendment, and the
clause was agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 38 were agreed to.
On clause 39,
The ATfOItNEY-GENEItAL stated, in answer to
questions, that be proposed to add words to meet the
case parties residing out of the jurisdiction, and to
give ofthee court the same power as was conferred by any
statute on the Court of Chancery.
The clau-e as amended was agreed to.
On clause 40,
Sir W. HEA.THCOTE moved the omission of the
words exempting a petitioner from answering any ques-
tion which might tend to show that be had been guilty
of adultery.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the last law of
evidence in these cases was that the husband and the
wife should not be examined against each other. The
words in the clause were not founded on the common
law principle—that a party could nut be examined to
criminate himself.
Sir W. HEATLICOTE said the clause gave the power
to examine the parties on all points but one, and that
the most material.
Mr. AYRTON said the main object of the clause was
to get rid of the documentary ex ',mina:dans in the eccle-
siastical courts.
Mr. AI'M ARON supported the amendment.
Mr. BUT said they had no right to put to a witness
questions which held out the strongest possible tempts.
tion to commit perjury.
Mr. LOCKE (Southwark) said that no man was bound
to answer a question whic'e 1401111 subject him to eccle•
siastieal censure.
Mr. HENLEY doubted whether the exemption went
far enough. If a man were asked whether he had been
guilty et bigamy, was he to be required to answer that ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained the precise
of ...ct of the clause, which was only to give the new
court the power of examining parties in the same way
as the House of Lords now examined a petitioner. At
the same time it was necessary to put a limit to the ques-
tions that might be asked. The case of bigamy was so rare,
and necessarily included adultery, that no special exerap•
tion as to answering on that point was required .
The amendment was negatived, and the clause was
agreed to.
Clause 41 was agreed to.
Severs' verbal amendments were made in clause 42,
which was then agreed to.
On clause 43, which refers to the mode of taking evi-
dence,
Mr. BUTT suggested whether it would not be better
to omit this clause. As he understood the clause, one
of the parties could now give evidence on affidavit, and
after having done so, the other party could require the
person making the affidavit to be brought up to London,
fur the purpose of being orally exa nined, and the whole
matter would have to he gone over again.
Mr. GLA.DSTONE said, before the clause passed, he
should like to know from his bon, and learned friend the
Attorney-General whether the hon. and learned member
for Youghal accurately represented the effect of the
clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the bill
stood there were some matters which must be tried by a
jury. There were others which the judge might send to
be tried by a jury. Bat there were many matters with
regard to which it might be convenient to have the evi-
dence taken by affidavit. But if the opposing party
desired to have the benefit of a viva voce examination,
even after the evidence so given on affidavit, it would be
competent for that party to require the evidence to be
given orally. In many cases that would be the most
convenient mode of proceeding,
Mr. BUTT said that the fact of the adultery would
not be tried by a jury, unless either of the respondents de-
mended it, and they would hare that power even after
the petitioner had verified his case by affidavit, and been
cross-examined in court.
Mr. GLADSTONE wanted to know whether both
processes of affidavit and examination and trial by jury
could be applied to the same case ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said any person
familiar with the course of procedure would know that
the court would not. Igrant the right-of cross-examining
unitise the party dernandin;, it declared he did not intend
to apply fora trial before a jury.
Mr. BuTr thought it would be better to strike out
the clause altogether.
A division was then called for, but none took place,
and the clause as amended was agreed to.
Clauses 44. 45, 46, 47, were also agreed to.
On clause 48,
Mr. !WM A HON considered that in all cases the c.ists
should follow the event, and moved to insert the words,
"That when any contested matter shall be tried by a
jury the costs shall abide the:result of the verdict, unless
that verdict be afterwards set aside."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not assent to
the amendment. The matter tried before the jury might
be only a part of the subject in issue between the parties.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 49 was also agreed to.
Clause 50, court to make rules and orders.
Mr. WIGRAM moved to add words to enable the
court to provide for hearing certain causes in private.
Mr. MALINS did not think the words necessary, as
every court bad the power of hearing causes in private:
it was the constant practice of the Court of Chancery to
do so. He was unwilling to insert words which would
sanction a practice which was open to many objections.
Mr. WIGRA.NI said the 43rd clause provided that
all evidence shou'd be taken in open court, and therefore
this proviso was necessary. He would not object to
add the words " with the consent of the parties."
Lord LOVAINE supported the amendment.
The committee divided.
For the amendment . 23
Against
Mr. HENLEY proposed to strike out the whole of
the section after the word "save" in the 21st line. His
object in doing this was to leave open to the court the
framing of its rules of procedure.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had not the least ob-
jection to give up the words.
The amendment was agreed to and the clause passed.
On clause 51, _

Mr. HENLEY thought they ought not to impose a
fine unless they constituted adultery a crime. The At-
torney-General had given notice of an amendment that
the fine be paid to the husband. If this were to be as
compenation, he did not see why a jury should not settle
it instead of tae judge.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked that by
dividing on the words "in" or "on" they were deter-
mining whether a clause should be inserted making adul-
tery punishable by fine and imprisonment. If they were
to have a fine he preferred that it should be assessed by a
jury rather than by a judge, and that it should be paid
to the husband, or applied as a provision for the wife, or
as a maintenance for the children. Bat at present they
were merely discussing the question whether adultery
should be punishable as a crime or not.
Mr. MALIN'S asked how hon. members who cute in
to vote when the ball rang, and who bad not heard the
discus-ion, were to know how to vote when the question
put was whether the word', should should be "in" or
4, on"?
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. BUTT moved to omit the words " to impose
upon the adulterer a fine and."
The ATTORNEY-GENERALagreed, and the clause
was aitared accurdingly.
Lord J. MANNERS then proposed to insert the
words, " that the adulterer be punished by fine and im-
prisonment, or by fine or imprisonment,"
Mr. BUTT said this raised the question in the most
inconvenient form. He could not bring himself to agree
that a person should be punished as a criminal on these
proeee lings. He did not think criminal punishment
should be inflicted unless there was a conviction by a
jury.

Mr. MALI'S objected to the appeal court number-
ing within its members the judge against whose decision
the appeal went.
The clause was agreed to. On clause 52,
Mr. WALPOLE objected to the appeal in these
cases being limited to questions of law. In matters of
divorce questieas of fact were far more likely to arise
than questions of law, and inasmuch as all courts were
liable to error, he trusted that something would be (lone
to meet this difficulty. He moved to omit words effect-
ing this object.
Mr. BOVILL Paid that it had been latterly a well
known part of English jurisprudence to allow an ap-
peal on maters of law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL quite went with the
right hon. gentleman, and was perfectly re tdy to assent
to his amendment. He had indeed been prepared to call
she attention of the committee to the matter had he not
been so well anticipated.
The am-ndment and the clause were agreed tr.
On clause 53,
Mr. ROLT said that upon this clause the potency of
the bill for good or evil rnu,t depend. He could not '
agree with the view which had been stated, that this bill
was but to create a new court for the administration of
the existing law. He believed that i;rt object was to main-
tain the sanctity of the marriage vow in the minds of
many, but yet giving relief to the few, in whose case the
sanctity of that vow had been violated. R ith that prin-
ciple he did not think that this clause was in consonance.
The result was that the offence of adultery, which was
en offence by the laws of the country, was to be re-
warded by the liberty to marry again. In cases where
hie nnpatibility of temper rendered the marriage life un-
happy there was no remedy ; but if one or other of the
parties committed adultery, then divorce was obtainable.
The bill, therefore, would operate as a direct temp'ation
to the commission of adultery. It might be said that you
could scarcely adopt any legii-lieion which should be free
from anomalies. That was true, but let them not carry
anomalies further than was necessary. No doubt it was
an anomaly that in granting relief by divorce to the in-
nocent party they necessarily granted relief to the guilty
party also. But let them not reward the guilty party by
giving the privilege of remarriage because of the guilt.
They sh eild take iota account the effect which such a
law would have upon the many who did not fa'l within
its scope. It was the duty of the legislature to pro ect
the man, and not to sacrifice them to the few woo fell
into error. It might be well to consider what was the
law in other countries as well as in our own country up
to the present time. It had newr yet been wiitten in
the law of any ceuu'ry that divorce was to be given,
by reason of adultery. In France the law was distinct,
that the adulterer should not marry with the accomplice.
His hon. friend the member for Cambridge had an
amendment embracing that principle which he shouldbe
content to take as a comprorei,e, though his own
amendment went further. In Scotland it was the same,
whie in Sweden the adulterer could not marry again
i-xeept with the consent of the spouse and by the royal
authority ; and then as regarded our own country, he ,
contended that special acts of parliament, under which
alone the authority to marry again was given, dearly
showed that the general law did not recognise the prin-
ciple of the remarriage of a man or woman divorced for
the crime of adultery. The probable result of grant'ag
license, and extendivg it to the middle slats would
be to sap and weaken the notions of fidelity in the con.;
jugal relations to an c xtent that it was impossible to

-11ir. WIGRAM should vote for the amendment.
There should be some mode of punishment, and he saw
no better mode of doing it than by imprisonment.
Sir G. GREY said if they determined to punish adultery
as a crime, they ought to let the person to be punished
have the ordinary advantages which persons had when
charged with criminal offences.

Sir W. HEATFICOTE supported the amendment.
Mr. PULLER said there w4s this ohjectiooo making
adultery a criminal offence—it would give any discarded
servant power to drag parties before thecourt for matters
which bad long since been condoned. If the amendment
were agreed to, the accused party would have every
advantage which he would enjoy if tried upon an indict-
ment. He wool I have a trial by jury ; and he would
have the charges against him clearly stated in the peti-
tion. The amendment did n it go so far as he could wish,
or so far as he hoped the committee would yet consent
to go ; but he should give it his support.
Mr. LYGON reminded the committee that one of the
principal objects of the bill was to substitute one inquiry
for the three which at present exists. But that object
would be defeated if there must be a criminal trial as
well as the inquiry before the court.
Mr. BUT r said the inquiry beceisary for the purposes
of a divorce WAS by no means the same as that required
before they could punish a man for adultery. In the lat-
ter case they must prove that the defendant knew that
his paramour was a married woman ; whereas no such
point arose with regard to the simple question whether
there should be a divorce.

Mr. HENLEY objected to the amendment. They
ought first to settle whether adultery war 4 t I be treated
as a crime. The bon. gentleman (Hr. Puller) talked of
the hardship of allowing a servant to commence a prose-
cution for matters which had been condoned; but dit rot
that show that adultery was a private wrong? It was not
competent to a person to make up a public offsncp,
Lord J. MANNERS observed that in France and
other countries where adultery was punished by fine and
imprisonment, no suit c)uld be commenced except by
the injured party.

Mr. ADAMS should vote against the amendment, but
he wished it to be understcod that he was not oppo-e'
to the treatment of adultery as a punishable offence.
(night remind the committee that the defendant would

- I
not iyove the advantage of the previous inquiry before_

calculate. In the majority of the divorce cases that
came before the House of Lords it bad boen shown that
the adultery had been c:antriitted to facilitate the divorce.
They were having the lessons of experienc3 to enter
upon the fi.ld of experiment, and it was the duty of
these who recomim nded that course to prove that it
would not be attended with those evils which he had
pointsd out. Tae ltw had never yet gone so far as to
declare that the guilty party should be at liberty t 3
marry again—though in enabling the innocent party to
remarry, that result had followed. There were various
modes of meeting the objection to which this clause was
open, and the way he proposed to meet it was to pro-
vide that the disselution of the marriage should not
enable the guilty parties to marry again. He moved, in
the first in-Lance, the amendment of which his right hon
and learned friend the member for the University of
Dublin, who was not present, had given notice, viz.,
in line 15, leave out "the respective parties thereto,"
and insert, " the party on whose petition the mar
riage shall have been dissolved," and leave out
"as if the," and the whole of line 16, in order
that the dissolutica of marriage might take its
course, as it did at present, without directly sanc-
tioning the re-marriage of the guilty parties ; but he
proposed afterwards to submit his own amendment—
leave ont "the respective parties," itc., to the end of
the clause, and insert " the party on whose petition the
marriage shall have been dissolved to marry again, but
no sentence or decree of dissolution of marriage pro-
nounced or made under the authority of this act, shall
enable the party; by reason of whose adultery or other
offence the marriage shall have been dissolved, to marry
again."

—Sir G. GREY looking at the amendment as a whole,
thought it would be very Inexpedient to adopt it. The
bill would not enable the guilty party to marry again,
any more than the existing state of the law did. At
present, though it was not declared, yet by giving the
party in whose favour the divorce was granted that
right, the gui'ty party practically war enabled to exer-
cise it also. Take the case of a woman who had the
misfortune to commit a breach of the marriage vow at
an early period of life. Was she never to have an op-
portunity for penitence or contrition, and, her husband
having married again, was she to be compelled to lead
for the remainder of her existence a life, as it bad been
termed, of " degraded celibacy ?" (Hear, hear.) That
would, in fact, be the ramlt of adopting what was pro-
posed.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said the great advantage of
adopting the amendm. ent of the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Napier) was, that it wool I leave the law preei,e'y
as it stood at present. He believed they woul I be
wrong if they attempted to make this bill a refi,etion of
the divine law. No doubt, it became them to bear that
law in their consciences ; but they must remember that
they were then exercising their legislative functions with
regard to a civil right. (Hear, hear.) On the one band,
they ought not to give to guilty parties a right to claim
religious sanctions to a second marriage ; but, on the
other, it did not become them to take away from a
guilty woman a locus p2nitentim.

Mr. GRIFFITH observed that the effect of prohibit-
ing an adulteress from c.mtracting a second marriage
would be, in many cases, to protect the seducer against
the natural consequences of his own act, and to numbers
such a prohibition would be very agreeable.
The cornini!tee then divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —.60
Mr. GLADSTONE said his amendment stood next,
and he trusted he should not be expected to move it
then, as he should deem it necessary to trouble the com-
mittee with a statement of some length.
Lord PALMERSTON thought the request of the
right hon, gentleman perfectly reasonable.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again this day at 12.
TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL.

Mr. WALPOLE moved that the house resolve itself
into committee on this bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objectel to the mo-
tion, on the ground that the house bad not sufficient
time to consider it, and stated that it was his int,otion
to introduce a comprehensive mea-ure on the subject
next session.

Mr. WALPOLE consented to the withdrawal of the
bill, and the order was discharged.

JUDGMENTS BILL.

This bill was committed pro forma.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND)

BILL

The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered
and a!reed to.

CROWDED DWELLINGS PREVENTION BILL.

On the question that the bill be committed,
Mr. RIDLEY tnought such an important bill ought
not to be pressed forward at that lath period of the ses•
sion, and said that unless the right bon. gentleman (Hr.
Cowper) consented to withdraw it he should move that
it be committed that day three months.
Mr. HENLEY trusted the bill would be withdrawn,
as he considered it equally objectionable and unintel-
ligNe.
Mr. KINNAIRD defended the bill, and bad no hesi-
tation in declaring that if the whole of the metropolis
could be polled the great majority would be found
favourable to the measure.

Lord V. TENIPEST opposed the bill, on the ground
that it was obscure and despotic. They might almost
suppose that it came from the Tuileries. (Hear.)
The house then divided on the motion for going into
committee.
For the motion
_ Against it

Lord V. TEVI.PEST said he must resist going into
committee at that hour. He would therefore move that
the debate be adj mirned.

Mr. CO WPEit was willing to go into committee and
report progress.

Mr. COX hoped the house would not go into CJlll-
mirtee at that hour.

Mr. HENLEY humorously expresFed his hope that
the bill would be made to apply to Scotland, and that
they should not be all 'wed there to sleep more than
" three in a bed." (Great laughter.)
Lord V. TEMPEST having withdrawn his motion for
the adjournment, the bill passed through committee pr,
forma.

Some returns were ordered, and the house adjourned
at two o'clock.

Vaval and Military Intelligence.

Colonel H. Jervis, in command of the provisional
battalion at Chatham, rcceivel erderi yesterday
for the whole of the available non•comrnissioned

officers and m?n belonging to the following., depots
at Chatham garrison to be held in readiness to em-
bark at Gravesend on board the Lightning for In-

dia, for the purp(,se of reinforcing their respective
regiments—viz., Bth (the King's), 10th, 29th, 32d,
35th, 53d, Ist battalion 60th (Rifles), 75th, 82d,

and 84th.

The remaining companies of the battalion of
Royal Marine Light Infantry, stationed at Deal,
arrived at he►d-quarter4, Chatham, on Saturday,
in charge of Major S. Fraser, Captain It V. Alleo,
and Lieutenant E. B. Sao at. The staff of thy bat-

talion, under the command of Lieutmant-Colonel
J. H. Gaseoigne, will be transferred to Chatham as
soon as the =punts of the battalion have been
made up.
Lieutenant-Colonel RoV)ert Abercromby Yule, of
the 9th Lancers, was killed on the 20th June be-

and its dependencies yesterday morning. .The
Board consisted of Sir Chas. W,,od G.C.B, M P. ; •
Rear-Admiral the Hon. Sir Rich ar.l Saunders Dun-
des, K.C. 8., and Mr. Bating, M.P., accompanied
by Mr. Romaine, S. c S -era at y; C iptain Sir
B Ild win W. Walker, K. C. 8., Surveyor :•f • he Navy ;
Lieutenant-Co:onal Greene, D:rector of Admiralty
Engineering and Architectural Works ; Mr. West,
of the Private-office at the Admiialry ; and Mr.
Carroll, Assist ant-Secretary. Mr. Lloyd, Chief
Engineer and Inspector of Machinery, and Mr.
Scamp, Deputy-Director of Engineering and Ar-
chitectural Works, were also in attendance. The
Board arrived at half-past 9 o'clock on Sunday
night, per South-We&ern Railway, and immedi-
ately proceeded on board their old yacht the Black
Eagle, Master-Commander J. R. Pe'ley, where
they slept. At 8 o'clock yesterday morning their
flag was hoisted at the main of the Black Eagle,
when the flagship Victory salule-I it with 19 guns.
At 9 o'clock their Lordships lauded at the new
King's stairs, where they were received by Rear-
Admiral Martin and all the dockyard a ttf. The
flag was immediately transferred t) the dockyard
gates, and the inspection comm.?ncA. wi-h the
usual "walk over" the dockyard. They went on
b and the gunboats Jassur and Jasper, which are
fitting out for sea. At noon they mustered the
men' of the dockyard, and afterwards diatnissed
them with the customary half-holyday. At a
quarter to 1 o'clock their Lordships let the dock-
yard, and went to the Royal Marine Art llery
Barrack, to inspect the darns under the command
of Colonel Packe ; from the Uunwharf Barracks
tie Board went on board the Victory. Capt tin
G. H. Seymour, C. 8., and 'mustered the officers
an] men of the floet in ordinary, whence they pro-
ceeded to inspect the young officers' and seamen's
training ship Illustrious, '72, Captain Harris, and
the two instruction brigs, Sealark and Rolla,
Lieutenants - Lowther and Nelson. After tAs
their Lordships went to transact business on board
the Black Eagle. They dined last night with the
Commander in-Chief at the Ailmralty-hotise. The
dock -adjacent to the Master-Boa swain's office in
the dockyard is ordered to be lengthened.
A letter from the Simoom states that she left the
Mauritius on the 24th May, with ti-e sth Fusiliers
on board, after firing a royal salute in honour of her
Majesty's birthday, and arrived at Singapore on the
19th June, when she received orders from the cap-
tain of the Spartan to proceed immediately t, Cal-
cutta, at which place she arrived on the 4th July,
and disembarked the sth. It was expected that
she would sail again cab tut the 9th or luith July, to
fetch more troops, either from the 0 tpe, Mauritius,
or Suez. The Spartan and Shannon were at Sin-
gapore when the Simoom arrived there ; the Shan-
non having made a splendid passage from England,
only having occasion to steam 36 hours on her voyage
to the Cape, and doing the distance from the Cape
to Singapore in 30 days. She was expected to pro-
coed clm- nediately to China with Lord Elgin.
The ()Rowing appointments hare been made at
the Admiralty : •

Spencer lvT. Maley, mate, to the Pelorus ; W.
H. Elton, mate,. to the Pylades ; Cuthbert R.
Buckle, mate, to the Assurance ; the Rev. F. R.
Stratton, chaplain and naval instructor to the Py-
lades ; R. G. Clarke, surgeon to the N ila convict
ship ; J. G. T. Forbes, assisi ant surgeon, to be
surgeon ; T. Craig, assistant surgeon to the Jasper,
T. C. Hession, a.‘ sistant surgeon, to the Jasper ;
T. Backhouse, clerk, to the Bescsweu ; W. Carter,
clerk to the Boscawen ; J. Odevane, assistant clerk
to the Boscawen.