The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL -PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
HONG KONG.
Mr. DUNLOP asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, with reference to the fact, appearing from the
Parlatmentary paper No. 147, of last session, that, while
the emigration officer at Hong Kong had refused to
grant a certificate for more than 81 Chinese coo lies being
taken to sea by the John Calvin, bound for Havana,
that vessel carried away 297 such passengers, of whom
110 perished on the voyage, by suicide and disease,
and 23 more in quarantine and hospital at Havana :
whether the conduct of the master, in taking pas engers
exceeding so greatly in number that for which the certi-
ficate was granted, was a contravention of the Chinese
Passengers' Act of 1855, and, if so, whether instructions
bad been given for enforcing the penalties under the
bond granted at Hong Kong in terms of that act ; or,
if it be not, whether her Majesty's Government would
propose an amendment of the act to remedy a defect
which gave occa.ion to kidnapping and its consequences:
and, whether any communication ,had been made to his
department of an explanation having been demanded or
received from the British Consul General in Cuba of the
statement, so far as regards the Jobn Calvin, contained
in his report on the cases of that vessel and the Duke of
Portland, that he had minutely inquired into them, and
that there was no blame whatever attached to the mas-
ters of that vessel ?
Mr. LABOUCIIERE said that the officers at Hong
Kong only licensed for 80 coolies, and that the others
were carried against that license. The authorities were
considering whether the law was sufficient to prevent
such conduct, and if so, measures would be accordingly
taken, and if it was found the law was defective he
should take steps to amend it. With regard to the
conduct of the Consul at Havannab, no blame was
justly imputed to him.
THE CHARTIST CUFFEY.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Secretary of State
for the Home Department why William Cuffay had nit
participated in the general amnestygranted in the spring 2
of last year by her Majesty to all political prisoners .
Sir G. GREY said his name was on the list sent out,
but that probably it bad not arrived when the hon,
member's informatien left Van Diemen's Land.
THE MURRAIN.
Lord NAAS asked the Vice President of the Board
of Trade, whether her Majesty's Government had re-
ceived any communications relative to the murrain
said to be raging among the cattle on the Continent ;
and, whether he would lay such communications on
the table of the house ?
Mr. LOWE said that no communication bad been
received that could be laid on the table of the house.
The communication that bad been received had been
handed to Dr Greenhow for a report, and when ready
it would be laid on the table- of the house. If that del
not satisfy the noble lord he would then lay the original
documents on the table of the house.
GUANO.
Mr. CAIRD asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
whether a search for guano, nitrates, or other natural
deposits of manure, formed part of the instructions to
her Majesty's naval . offictre at present engaged in the
surveys of the coast of Egypt, the south-east coast of
Africa, the south-western Pacific, and the river La
Plata, all of which surveys were stated in the navy
estimates to he now in progress
Mr. BAXTER asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to send out a few small vessels of war for
the purpose of searching the rainless coast of Africa,
and other promising localities, for supplies of guano ;
and whether any negoti itiens bad been entered into
with the Brazilian Government for securing a right to
remove nitrate of soda from the deposits lately disco-
vered near Pernambuco ?
Sir C. WOOD said that vessels were not sant out spe-
cially by the Government to search for guano islands,
but directions were given to captains to look about and
report to the Government ; but at present they had
been unsuccessful. The officers would not be
likely to find any on the coast of Egypt and the south-
east coast of Africa, but they had directions to look out
for guano in the south-western Pacific. He was not
aware of any negotiations with Brazil relative to taking
nitrate of soda.
THE SHIP " LORD RAGLAN."
Mr. LAURIE asked the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty whether it was decided that 1,000 troops, with
officers and women, were about to leave Kingston for
the Mauridue en board the ship Lord Raglan ; and
whether a vessel of such tonnage was capable of con-
taining so large a number with any comfort or safety ?
Sir C WOOD said that the Lord Raglan was only to
take 727 men, with officers and women, and 70 boys.
She was quite capable of taking that number.
THE TRANSIT.
In reply to a question from Admiral WALCOTT,
Sir C. WOOD took the opportunity of stating tbat in-
telligeece bad been r-ceived from the Transit, dated
Cape de Verd Islands, and that everything was going
on satisfactory. (Hear, hear.)
EDUCATION.
In answer to a question from Mr. SLANGY,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he did not contemplate
bringing in a bill this session on the question of educa-
tion, but he would introduce the subject for the conside-
ration of the house by motion.
THE PROPERTY OF MARRIED WOMEN.
Sir E. PERKY moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the law of property, as it affects married women
and their separate earnings. The lion. and learned mem-
ber said be had hoped that this question would havebeen
taken up by her Majesty's Government, the late Attor-
eey-General, now Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
having admitted, when he brought it before the house,
that the rules of common law relating to the property of
married women were moot unjust, and inapplicable to
the present state of society, and that tbe rules of the
Court of Equity were more consistent with the require-
ments of the age. He could assure the new members of
the house that what ne proposed was not founded on
mere theory; what he wished for was a practical remedy
for a practical ge ievance, and in the lest session nearly
25,000 persons c implained in petitions of the present
state f the law, and brought before the house exemples
of hardship which had fallen within their own I xperi-
enee ; and having pointed out a grievaece they were
no ee aexiously waitieg for the remedy. One ground on
which he appealed to the house to take up this question
was that a bill had been introduced in anwher place to
increase the facilities for obtaining a divorce. Those who
understood the law of divorce in other countries were
not anxious to see any innovation, on our present law of .
marriage undertaken hastily-, and his own opinion was
that tne people of England did not desire that facile di-
vorce ghoul t become part'of the law of the laud. There
was, however, a general desire for some wise and coin-
pra hensive measure as to the enjoyment of property be-
tween man and wise. The husband required to be re-
lieeed horn pecuniary liabilities on the part of a guilty
wife, arid on the other hand, the wife who had been de-
serted desired that her own earnings shonli be secured to
her, instead of being left to be seized by a profligate hus-
band. He was senvinced that the carrying out of these
"objects would do away with tho demands which were
being made in some quarters with regard to divorce.
The objections which were made to the present
state of the law by those who had petitioned the 1
house was that the common law of England was unjust
in principle, that it differed from the law of all other
civilised countries, that it was even inconsistent with
itself, and that it was' grievous in its operation. He
would not dwell at length on these points, but would
content himself with very shortly stating the effect of
,the law as it stood. Bx the common law of England
the wife had no property whatever, either in the per-
sonalty which she hod before marriage, or in anything
which she might acquire after marriage. She had no
right of suing or being sued,, and if she claimed the
protection of courts of justice, their decision was nearly
always against her. The law on the subject of dower
sees entirely in favour of the husband. The Roman
law, which was the great foundation of the laws of the
civi Lied wort I, treated woman with the same respect as
man in regard to property, giving her all the riolats of
property and imposing on her all the obligations arising
out of those rights. So, again, under the German law,
which prevailed over the greater part of the continent
of Europe, the wife had an indefeasible interest in the
common stock of the husband and wife, the rommunia
bonorum, and could claim her share if the marriage
were dissolved or a separation took place inconsequence
of differences. Not only was the English law unlike the
laws of all other civilised countries, but it had departed
from its own pri ciples. The early principles of the Engt
hsh law were as enlightened and just with respect to
the property of women as were those of the Roman or
the German low. In early days, when land was not
of great value, the English law did not take front the
wise any landed property which she possessed before
marriage ; and though it gave the husband a right to
that property after ber death, if a child were born alter
the marriage, it made the wife a compensation for that
by giving her a third of the land whether a child was
born or not. So again with regard to personalty, which
was in those days of little value, the wife bad a clear
indefeasible right to a third of her husband's property
after his death. These rights were destroyed by success
Stii:nede-Asions of courts of justice. Sir William Bleck-
te remarked that wives lost them by imperceptible de-
greets, the truth being that husbands assumed a right to
Courts
of justice sanctioned that assumption, For the
credit of the legal profession, he must
say he had very
rarely heard any defence of the law as it stood. It
was
generally admitted to be a harsh law, and with the ex-
ception perhaps of thneohboen.haandd learned member for
Wallingford Mali
that house defend it. Sims sages nut heard any one in
of the
One of the
he law, tolerably
advanced in life, bad indeed set np a
most distinguished judges of the country
sard defence.
otfhahtifiaswtihfee
law threw on the husband the maintenance
and children, and the education of his children, and as
it rested with the husband to state how those, duties
should be performed, it was quite right that the law ;
should give to the husband the whole of the property of
the wife, in order that he night be enabled to discharge
these obligations. Now, assuming that the liabilities
were correctly stated, it was quite obvious that the con-
clusion was a great deal too wide. Supposing the hus-
4eankl, were bound to maintain his children, what was to
he the ease if there were no children of the marriage, or
;Atha wife died a week after the marriage, or if the hue.
itand'had 'a mistress and illegitimate children! Was it
right, was it reasonable, that in such cases the husband
should be able to dispose of all that was possessed by the
wife? But the proposition which he had quoted was not
correct as regardeo facts. The law of England did not
make a man liable to maintain his children or to edu-
citte them. He was bound to maintain his wife in accord-
anee with his own position, but his maintenance of his
,cbridren was governed by the poor law, which simply
required that they should not become chargeable to the
-parish. No father was compelled by the law of England

to educate his children, the law very wisely leaving the /
performance of such duties to parental feelings. If this
were the case, why should the property of the mother
be taken from her in order to enable the father to
discharge these duties ? No one would contend that
parental feelings were not at least asetrong in the female
as in the male, and that being the case, there was no
excuse for placing the wife's property at the dis-
posal of the husband. He would not trouble the
house by reading a bead-roll of grievances which had
arisen under the present law ; such cases must now be
familiar to all ; but there was one instance which he
would refer to, because it illustrated a very large class
of cases. It was taken from a letter from an eminent
solicitor, which appeared in a late number of the Edin-
Reriew. This gentleman was applied to by a lady
of rank and influence, whose daughter had just eloped,
and was asked to try and stop the marriage. The young
lady had a great deal of property in the books of the
Bank of England. The solicitor was fortunate enough
to arrive at the church before the marriage was solem-
nised. The young lady being of age he bad no power to
stop the marriage ; but he succeeded in postponing it for
24 hours. and, during that period, the bridegroom, a
your :g officer, was so loud in his professions as to what
he would do for his future wife, that even the solictor,
with all his experience, was taken in. Accordingly a
deed was prepared settling the young lady's property on
herself, and before the marriage it was attested in the
vestry by the officiating clergyman. After the ceremony
was over, however, the old lawyer, inspired with profes-
sional caution, sent to the Bank of England, and put a
distringas on the young lady's property. It was most
fortunate that he did so, for almost at the earliest pos-
sible period after the marriage the husband went to the
Bank of England, and demanded a transfer of the stock
into his own name. This the distringas prevented, and
thus the solicitor had the good fortune to secure the
property to the lady herself. This was a specimen of
cases which are happening every day ; and if any doubts
existed on the subject, they might be easily removed be-
fore a committee. Now, he might be asked what remedy
he proposed to apply to the present state of the law ?
What he proposed was, in the first place, to give to females
of the middle and humbler classes the same powers with
respect to property before marriage that were now ex•
ercised by the higher classes, with the aid of solicitors
and settlements. He fully admitted the difficulty of
legislating wisely on such a subject, but he was happy
to say that the whole question had been fully investi-
gated by a learned society, to which many distinguished
members of that house belonged—he meant the Law
Amendment Society—and that society had almost unani-
mously come to the conclusion that one of the first steps
in the improvement of the law was to leave to the wife
the sole enj ,yinent of her own property before marriage,
so far as it was not affected by any settlement. This
was no new principle in legislation, it was a principle of
the Roman law, which was described by Lord Lyndhurst
as the noblest monument of human wisdom. It was also
oneof the pi inciples of the German law, and of the law of
the United States. The United States of America had
for the most pert adopted the English law ; but having
found that portion of the English law which related to
this subject very injurious to the community, they had
adopted the principle of giving to married women ex-
clusive rights over their own property. The bob and
learned member t hen read a letter from Mr. D. Field,
an American lawyer at New York, in reply to one from
the Committee of the Law Amendment Society, in
favour of the view which he was advocating. The ques-
tion, be said, would be asked, if property was to be
secured to a married woman by the common law, what
liabilities should attach to her. On that paint he had no
besit-etion in saying that a wife should be as much liable
for all her own acts as she
.was before marriage. That
was the case in equity at present, when a wife had a
separate estate. But if this principle sere adopted, the
extraordinary anomaly of the husband being liable for all
the debts contracted by his wife before marriage, must
at the same time be abolished. (Hear, hear.) The hus-
band was now liable for the wrongful acts of his wife,
even for the slanderous use of her tongue ; but he thought
that if a wife were made capable of helding property
' under the common law, she ought to be reponsible for
her own conduct. He was convinced that to say that the
women of England desired to escape from such respon-
sibility would be a gross slander. They knew that moral
' responsibility attached to every individual, and they
thought that in this matter legal responsibility ought
to accompany it. He thanked the house for the
patience with which they had listened to his re-
marks ; and be would only say, in conclusion, that
as the upper classes of society possessed all the requisite
machinery for protecting tbem,elves, what he now
asked the house to do was to give the middle and work-
' mg classes of society similar benefits to those which the
upper classes enjoyed. He would now move for leave to
introduce the bils

Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he felt great pleasure in
seconding the motion, being convinced that the working
of the present law in regard to married women was (x-
-ceedingly injust. He must confess, however, that be had
very great doubts whether his hon. and learned friend
would be able to attain his object unless a measure were
previously pa•ised to give greater facilities for divorce a
raensa et iltoro. And he had hoped that a bill on that
subject would come down from the House of Lards be-
fore this bill was introduced. He might himself have in-
troduceQ a measure on the subjectif he had notlearnt from
experience that it was utterly useless for any private
member to introduce a hill of importance. (Laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he wisherito state
in the first place that the Government would not oppose
the motion of the hon. and learned member. He was by
no means desirous of preventing a discussion on the sub-
je.ct ; on the contrary, he should be very glad if hon.
members wood make its subject of special and careful
attention. When the divorce bill came down from the
other house, it would he necessary that it should engage
attention. It was, however, a subject which was very
different from the ordinary topics of the law. Toe lsws
affecting the property of married women, and their status
with respect to that property, were intimately bound up
with our social institutions, and it was by no means a
Ilight thing to attempt an alteration of the law which in-
volved a material change in the social or political in-
stitutions of the country. The hon. and learned mem-
ber had undoubtedly taken upon himself a very diffi-
cult and onerous task. So far as the hon. and learned
member had stated his proposition, lie did not anti-
, cipate that it would be received with much favour.
His object seemed to be to make husband and wile
I independent persons, to make the women of England
stand in that strong-minded po-ition which he had ind•-
ceted—(laughter)—to make them independent in all
acts, so that neither would be in any way affected by
what the other said or did. He (the Attorney-General)
.1 did not think that was the wish of the best or the most
•I amiable portion of the women of England. (dear, hear.)
; Ile, however, was certainly desirous that the law of Eng-
land on this subject should be male consistent with it-
eel', and as an individual member, expressing individual
opinions, he would endeavour to point out how far he
should himself be disposed to go in a measure of reform.
(Hear, hear.) The hon.and learned member had alluded
to the remarkable difference which existed between the
law of England with respect to the effect of marriage on
reel property and on personal property. They all knew
very well that in the early period of English history per-
sonal property was greatly disregarded. When a
marriage took place,therefore, between a man and woman
possessed of real eqate, the law gave to the husband
n :t the unqualified property in real estate, but
right to the rents and profits during coverture ; and to
make an effectual alienatioe, he must obtain the consent
of his wife. The operation of the law was, however, ale
eurd. If a woman when she married had a real estate of
SOO/. a year, this did not necessarily go to the husband,
but if she hael 20,0001. in the funds, the stock was trans-
! ferred to him. He, should, therefore, by no means be
indisposed to let the dividends from stock he settled by
the marriage contract on the wife, and to apply to that
case the same safeguards that applied to real prop, rty,
unless the wife shouid, after marriage, consent to the
transfer of her personal property to her husband. He
would make the gift to the husband, as was now the case
in law, a gift subject to the condition of maintaining, pre-
tecting, and guarding the wife, and would provide chat if
that duty were rot discharged, and the property remained
intact arid unalienated, the life interest ehould revertto the
wife who had been deserted or treated brutally by her hus-
band. He now came to the question raised as to the earn-
ings of a married woman during coverturefrom any trade,
avocation, or pursuit. With regard to property of that
description, the courts of,equity were in the habit of re-
caenising a separate interest on the part of the wife ;
and he concurred with the hon. and learned member
that what the wife earned during coveture should re-
main her separate property. There remained a third
subject to be dealt with—namely, acquisitions made
after coverture ; the three kinds of property under can-
' sideratioa being the property which the wife had at the
time of her marriage ; the property which she acquired
after her marriage and during coverture by her own in-
dustry ; and the acquisitions she made by her own in-
dustry, gift, or otherwise, after coverture. The law was
at variance with equity on this subject. If a married
woman who had no settlement had a sum of money be-
queathed to her after coverture,she had a right to go into
equity and require a settlement to be made, and a portion of
the principal of the property was taken away and locked up
in settlement for the beDefitof the wife, with remainder to
the children. But this could only be obtained through the
in erpositiou of a court of equity, and that interposition was
limited by the amount of the property. He thought that
such property should be given to the wife without the
interposition of a court of justice ; and that it was inex-
pedient to wake her go to any tribunal, and each more
to so costly a tribunal as a modern court of equity. It
must be remembered that the law gave absolute owner-
ship of all the wife's property in possession to the hus-
band, and it they altered that law they would take away
the necessity for the interposition of a court of equity.
He should propose that the law should give t i the'huE-
ban d only a lite interest, subject to the dnty of maintain-
ing and protecting the wife. The mode of compelling a
husband to perform his obligations was most weak acd
inefficient, but they would make it efficient if they enacted
that a husband ill-treating his wife should lose his interest
in the property of the wife, which should revert to her.
He made these observations to inform the hon. member
how far some members of the Government, who have con-
sidered this matter already, were prepared to go in the
matter. He did not know any euhject that was more diffi-
cult, or that should be deat with mote anxiously and
approached with more timidity, than anything that dealt
with the relations between husband and wife.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped that the hon. member,
is bringing forward this bill, would adopt the course in-
rested by the Attorney-General. He thought that the
sames
ngrieao3grttndi
udtoportirtegoepthweretrechsataeoilhtonhopnaueri
whether
personalty.
rceTethAyheweoterhae so
weg vi ehnas ae
nt
goo
it mvh
eeanrr rmti
ne
ad
them
htwee
ronT
liewit we
wi
rat
el
Attorney-General fully stated what
ere a separation had taken
place between husband and wife, but still there had been
no divorce. By the present law the husband so living .
apart from his wife had a right to take her earnings for
his own use. The Attorney-General had alluded to the

wife's separate earnings during coverture, but not where
the parties were living separate.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—A fortiori during
scparat;on

'Sir J. PAKINGTON—The other question, as to the
wife's earnings during covertnre, might lead to some
difference of opinion. He had only made this statement
that he might express his strong opinion that, so far as
the bill applied to proved evils, the hon. and learned gen-
tleman had taken a course that deserved the thanks of
the house, and he hoped he would follow the very judi-
cious advice given by the Attorney-General.
Mr. B. HOPE thought that this matter was not so
cleat' as the right hon. member for Droitwich (Sir J.
Pakington) assumed it to be. Hitherto there had been
free trade in the property of husband and wife, and to
resort to protection in these days was rather a strong
proposition. This was a very delicate state of things.
(A laugh.) He was glad to say that all the husbands
thought so ; it was a delicate thing to interfere between
man and wife. The hon. gentleman would no doubt
next session bring in a bill to protect fathers against
spendthrift sons, and also a not less necessary law to
protect sons against curmudgeon fathers. The measure
had two sides, one object being to protect the rich, and
the other the poor. No doubt the hardest case was
where a profligate husband wrested from the wife the
few pence which she had earned by the sweat of her
brow. That was an undoubted hardship, but how was
the Legislature to interfere Let the Legislature declare
that the earnings of the wife should not belong to the
bust:and, but bow could acts of Parliament protect her
when the drunken brute came home and wrested the
money from her. She might go to a mag:strate, and he
might order him to refund what had been already spent,
or send him to the treadmill, and leave her a beggar in
the streets. With respeck to the rich, in matters of
marriage settlements and other cases, he thought that
the doctrine of caeeat emptor was a very good law. Se-
riously, he doubted, when the whole matter had been
fully discussed, as it would be in another place, bow far
it would be found right to meddle with one branch of it.
Mr. M. MILNES said they had been reproached upon
this subject in the public prints, and it had been said
that there were no persons who owed more to the ladies
than they did, in reference to their assistance in placing
them in the high position which they occupied. (A
laugh.) He did hope that they would come to the con-
sideration of this question in a very serious, and not in
a jesting spirit. It was only at the eleventh hour that
they had come to consider the matter at all. He thought
that his hon. friend who had brought forward this mea-
sure deserved the thanks of Parliament for having bro-
ken the ground. The hon. member for Maidstone (Mr.
B. Hope) might be assured that the house would do no-
thing that would attack the sanctity of those institutions
which he so revered, for those institutions were fixed too
deed in the hearts of the people to be altered by any act
of Parliament whatever. What they bad to do was to
remedy patent and admitted evils. He did not think that
the question was so difficult in that part of it which re-
ferred to the protection of the poorer classes, but when
they came to the upper classes, no doubt the question
did mix itself up with questions of separation and di-
vorce in a manner that made it very difficult to deal with.
There were cases of desertion of wives and also cases of
desertion of husbands by wives, and this was not solely
a woman's question.
Mr. MALINS thought it was farbetter to reserve any-
thing he had to say until a future stage of the measure,
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
ARMY HUTS.

C tpt. BOLDER() moved an address for returns of the
number of huts supplied to the Ordnance or War De-
partments during the years 1854-5 and 1855-6 ; the ap-
propriation of the same ; together with the stations, and
quantitiPs sent to each. And of the names of the several
contractors, amount of each contract, and price per hut,
with dimensions ; the present extent of hut accommoda-
tion in England and Ireland, and the number of troops
hutted on the lit day of April. 1857. Agreed to.
MINISTERS' MONEY IN IRELAND.

Mr. FAGAN moved to bring in a bill to amend the
act of 17 and 18 Vic., c. 2, with a view to the abolition
of ministers' money in Ireland. As he understood that it
was not the intention of the Government to oppose his
bill, be thought he should best consult the pleasure of the
h.,use by deferring any observations on the subject until
the measure reached a future stage.
Mr. STAFFORD asked what was the opinion of the •
Government as to this measure
Lord PALMERSTON said he had taken an opportu-
nity last session, when his hon. friend brought this
question before the house, of saying that the Govern-
ment, after full consideration of the matter, were pre-
pared to concur with the motion of his hon. friend, and
therefore if the details of the bill were unobjectionable,
the Government would nut oppose it, for they agreed
with the principle.
Mr. D BRAE Li observed thatthe principle of this bill
had be -n opposed by every Government, and by the nob!.
lord himself, who bad designated the principle as one of
confiscation. However, he did not think this a fitting
opportunity to enter upon the discussion of this bill, for
it was best to discuss a bill when they were prepmed to
divide, which they would not be upon a motion to bring
in a bill. Ho did not think that the present was a con-
venient time to discuss the merits of this measure, but
one ob ervation he onild not refrain from making. The
principle of the bill was one the importance of which
could not be overrated, for in fact it, if conceded, would
affect the right to all church property. This bill, as he
understood, was to be suppArted by the Government.

Was it not much better uoier circumstatices of this

kind, where a measure involving 94 principle of this im-
portance was sanctioned by the Government, that the
bill should be brought forward by the Government itself.
If that were so, still, in the present instance, her Ma-
jetty's Ministers had thought it consistent with their
duty to permit a private member to bring forward a bill
on a subject of such magnitude ; and he thought that
the Government was at least bound to do this—to take
care that a principle of such magnitude, having been
approved by them, the house should have an early op-
portunity of expressing an opinion on it ; for if it were
left in the hands of a private member, the chances were
against its ever being brought before the house for defi-
nitive decisior. He thought that the Government was
bound to make suc'a arrangements that the hill should be
brought speedily to a second reading. (Hear, bear.)
Certainly he should oppose it
Sir G. GREY agreed that it would be inconvenientto
discuss the scatter no cv, and therefore he would not follow
the right hon gentleman in the observations which he
had made. Tile Government proposed to do what bad
been stated. What was stated last session was that the
Government proposed to act on the recommendation of
'the committee of this house which sat in 1847, and look-
ing to the difficulty of collecting the fund for ministers'
money and other matters, they proposed to exonerate
the corporation of Ireland from the duty of collecting
the money, a duty which they could not be forced to per-
form without very great difficulty. As his hon. friend
()dr. Fagan) had taken this subject up, it would have
been ungracious to take it out of his hands. As to de-
lay by leaving it in tse hands of a private member, look-
ing to the amount of Government business before the
house, he believed that the house would be called on
much sooner to discuss the bill than if it were taken on
a Government day.
Mr. NAPIE it said the amount of business rendered
it more necessary to fix a day. The whole question was
one of deep importance, and it was his intention on the
second reading to move the rejection of the bill. He
thought he had better reserve his observations until then.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the bill involved a prin-
ciple of too great importance to be dealt with by a pri-
vate member.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND).
The LORD ADVOCATE brought in a hit to amend
the law for the registration of persons entitled to vote in
the election of members to serve in Parliament for coun-
ties in Scotland.
Mr. G. DUNDAS very much regretted that the bill
had been introduced after those meetings had taken place
in Scotland at which the matter might have been so well
discussed.
Mr. KINNAIRD thought that they were greatly in-
debted to the Lord Advocate for bringing in this bill.
Mr. CRAUFURD objected to the bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the discussion
had better take place on the second reading.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
BURIAL ACTS.

Mr. MASSEY moved for 1-ave to bring in a bill to
amend the Burial Acts.

Lave given.
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.

Lord ELC HO moved for leave to bring in a bill to
alter and amend the laws relating to the medical pro-
f ssion. The bill was the same as had been brought in
on a previous occasion.

Leave given.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND).
Captain MAGAN moved the second reading of this
bill.

Mr. NAPIER wished to know whether any member
of the Governmet '; Lad seen it ?
Mr. BUTT said his attention had been directed to it
by the [aptr. He thought the bill objectionable and
unneceverry.
Mr. H. HERBERT thought that the hon. member
deserved the graittude of the country for bringing this
matter before the house.

The bill was read a second time.
Several bills were brought in, and the house adjourned
at twenty minutes past seven.

[Anvgarissition.]—The salutary effect of Du Barry's del!-
cious Revalenta Arabica Food in removing Indigestion (Dys-
pepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, and Liver
complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility with-
out Medicine, is admirably displayed by the following letters:
" Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk, Juno 10, 1850. No. 4,208.—
Eight years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility with cramps,
spasms, and nausea, have been effectually removed by Du
Barry's health-restoring Food. I shall be happy to answer
any inquiries. Rev. J. W. Flaysra," " Bury, Lancashire,
Ang. 17, 1851. Gentlemen,—For a considerable time I have
suffered severely from a violent pain in my left side, extreme
flatulency, accompanied by an intolerable sensation of heart-
burn, and other disagreeable symptoms of dyspepsia. Various
remedies, alleged infallible, were tried in vain, and for a long
time I was never twenty-four hours without violent pain ;
indeed I was unfitted for the performance of my daily duties.
I was induced to try your food. In less than au hour I found
relief, and my recovery was very rapid. The duties which
previously had been an intolerable burden became a delight-
ful exercise, and I have since accomplished more labour with
lees fatigue than I over expected to be able to perform. I have
never hada return of my complaint.—l remain, &c., D.Trumes."
Supported by testimonials from the celebrated Professors of
Chemistry, Dr. Andrew tire ; Dr. Shorland ; Dr. Harvey
Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer ; Dr. Ingram .
Lord Stuart de Deeies ; the Dowager Countess of Castle-
etuart ; Major-Gen. Thomas King, and many other respectable
persons, whose health has been restored by it, after all other
means of cure had failed. For further particulars respect.
in; this invaluable food our readers are referred. toDu Barry's
alvartisement in another part of this paper.