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

2,IERCANTILE MAT IZCE ACT.

In answer to a ouesti.in frorn Colonel SYKES.
Mr. LOWE said there wa,poaitermtion contemplatEd
n the Mercantile Marine Act, and if there had it wou'd
not attempt to make it compulsory on all ship 3 to u,e
Cliffcrd. apparatus.
THE SCOTCH HERRING FISHERY.

In answer a question from &Lir:el SIXES,
mr. WILSON said that as the Commißsi,4litrs were
'tit-Arc:Wed what "brand" should he used for the herring
fi,,hr.ries in SeAland, and as regarded the harbour of
Wick: and the Larbours in that part 'of Scotland, he
intended shortly to ask for a committee to consider

In answer to a question from Mr. SLANEY,
Sir 3. 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. PERRY moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the law of property, as it affects married women
and their separate earnings. The hon. and learned mem-
ber said he had hoped that this question would have been
taken up by her Majesty's Government, the late Attor-
ney-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 most unjust, and inapplicable to
the present state of society, and that the rules of the
Court of Equity were more consistent with the require-
meets of the age. He could assure the new members of
the house that what he proposed was not founded on
mere theory; what he wished for was a practical reraedy
for a practical grievance, and in the last session nearly
125,000 persons complained in petitions of the present
state t f the law, and brought before the house examples
of hardship which had fallen within their own experi-
ence ; and having pointed out a grievance they were
now anxioueiy waiting 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 another 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 the people of England did not desire that facile di-
vorce should become part of the law Ve. the land. There
was, however, a general desire for some wise and com-
prehensive measure as to the enjeyment of property be-
tween man and wife. Lie husband required to be re-
lieved from pecuniaryliabili'~ieson the part of a guilty
wife, and on the other hate, the wife who had been de-
serted desired that her 0 ,on earnings should be secured to
her, instead of being left to be seized by a profligate hus-
band. He was can vinced that the carrying out of these
()ejects would do away with the 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
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. By the common law of England
the wife had no property whatever, either in the per-
sonalty which she had 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
was entirely in favour of the husband. The Roman
law, which was the great foundation of the laws of the
civiised world, treated woman with the same respect as
man in regard to, property, giving her all the rights 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 communia
bonorunt, 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 prig ciples. The early principles of the Eng-
lish law were as enlightened and just with respect to
the property of women as were those of the Roman or
the German law. In early days, when land was not
of great value, the English law did not take from the
wife 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 after
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 succes-
sive decisions of courts of justice. Sir William Black-
' stone remarked that wives lost them by imperceptible de-
grees, the truth being that husbands assumed a right to
everything that was possessed by their wives, and the
ceurte 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 the hon. and learned member for
Wallinerford (Kr. Malice) be bad not heard any one in
that house defend it. Some sages of the law, tolerably
advanced in life, had indeed set up a defence. One of the
most distinguished judges of the country said that as the
law threw on the husband the maintenance of his wife
and children, aed the education of his children, and as
it rested with the husband to state how those duties
ehou!d be performed, it was quite right that the law
should give to the husband the whole of the property 'af
the wife, in order that be night be enabled to discharge
these obligations. Now, assuming that the liabilities
were correctly stated, it was quite obvious that the con-
tlusion was a great deal too wide. Supposing the hus-
band were bound to maintain his children, what was to
.be the case if there were no children of the marriage, or
if the wife died a week after the marriage, or if the hus-
band had a mistress and ilegitimate children'? Was it
right, was it reasonable, tint in such cases the husband
should be able to dispose of all that was possessed by the
wife ? But the propn,.ition which be had quoted was not
correct ae reeardeu facts. The law of England did not
make a man liable tnR
intain his children or to edu-
cate them. H. e was bound to maintain his wife in accord-
ance with 11:s Own poeition, but hie maintenance of his
children was governed by the poor law, which simply
required that they should not become chargeable to the
pariah. No father was compelled by the law of England
to educate his children, the law very wisely leaving the

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 ex-
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 passed to give greater facilities for divorce a
mensa et thoro. And he had hoped that a bill on that
subject would come down from the House of Lerds be-
fore this bill was introduced. He might himself have in-
troduced a measure on the subj ect if he had notlearnt from
experience that it was utterly useless for any private
member to introduce a bill of importance. (Laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he wishedto 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-
ject ; on the contrary, he should be very glad if hon.
members would make it a subject of special and careful
attention. When the divorce bill came down from the
other house, it would be necessary that it should engage
attention. It was, however, a subject which was very
different from the ordinary topics of the law. The laws
affereting the property of married women, and their status
ith respect to that property, were intimately bound up
with our social institutions, and it was by no means a
light 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-
bE had undoubtedly taken upon himself a very diffi-
cult and onerous task. So far as the hon. and learned
member bad stated his proposition, he did not anti-
cipate that it would be received with much favour.
His object seemed to be to make husband and wife
independent persons, to make the women of England
stand in that strong-minded po-ition which he had indi-
cated—(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-Genera')
did not think that was the wish of the best or the most
amiable portion of the women of England. (Hear, hear.)
He, however, was certainly desirous that the law of Eng-
land on this subject should be made consistent with it-
self, 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
real 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 estate, the law gave to the husband
not the unqualified property in real estate, but
a right to the rents and profits during coverture ; and to
make an effectual alienation, he must obtain the consent
of his wife. The operation of the law was, however, ab-
surd. It a woman when she married had a real estate of
5001. a year, this did not necessarily go to the husband,
but if she had 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 be settled by
the marriage contract on the wife, and to apply to that
case the same safeguards that applied to real property,
unle4s the wife should, 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, pr,:-
tenting, and guarding the wife, and would provide that if
that duty were notdischarged, and the propertyrernained
intact and unalienated, the life interest should revert to the
wife who had been deserted or treated brutally by her hus-
band. He now came to thequestion raised as t the earn-
ings of a married woman during coverture from any trade,
avocation, or pursuit. With regard to property of that
description, the courts of equity were in the habit of re-
coenising 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 con-
sideration 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 bad no settlement bad a sum of money be-
queathed to her after coverture, she had a right to go into
equity and requi reasettlement to be made, and a portion of
the principal of the property was takettaway and locked up
in settlement for the benefit of the wife, with remainder to
the children. But this could only be obtained through the
in- erposi tio a 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 make her go to any tribunal, and much more
to so coseey 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 if 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 to the bus-
ba.sd only a life interest, subject to the duty of maintain-
irig and protecting the wife. The mode of compelling a
liusbatfid to perform his obligations was most weak and
inefficient, but they would make it efficient if tbey 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 t., 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 subject that was more diffi-
cult, or that should be dealt with more 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,
in bringing forward this bill, would adopt the course in-
dicated by the Attorney-General. He thought that the
same protection w'nich was given to married women with
regard to real prverty should be given to them with re-
gard to personalty. There was another matter. He was
not sure whether th Attorney-General fully stated what
be thought should be done where a separation had taken
place between husband and wife, but still there bad been
n I divorce. By the present law the husband so living
apart from his wife had a right to take her earnings for
his: own nee, The. AttoroerGeneral had alluded to the

one ob ervation he cmld not refrain from making. The
principte 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 supported by the Government.
Was it not much better unler circumstances of this
kind, where a measure involving a 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-

jesty'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 tak e
care that a principle cf such magnitude, having ben
approved by them, the hou,e 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 b-ought before the house fur defi-
nitive decision. He thought that the Government was
bound to make such arrangements that the bill should be
brought speedily to a second reading. (Hear, hear.)
Certainly he should oppose it
Sir G. GREY agreed that it would be inconvenientto
discuss thematternow, and therefore he would not follow
the right hon gentleman in the observations which he
had made. The 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
(Mr. Fagan) had taken this subject up, it would have
been ungracious to take it out of his hands. As t de-
lay by leaving it in the 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 b.ll than if it were taken on
a Government day.
Mr. NAPIER said the amount of business rendered
it more necessary to fir 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 bill to amend
the law for the registration of persons entitled to vote in
the election of members to serve in Parl;ament 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 leave to bring in a bill to
amend the Burial Acts.

Leave given.
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.

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

Leave given.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND).

Captain MA.GAN moved the second reading of this
bill.
Mr. NAPIER wished to know whether any member
of the Government had seen it 'I
Mr. BUTT said his attention had been direoted to it
by the rapir. He thought the bill objectionable and
unneceserry.
Mr. H. HERBERT thought that the hon. member
deserved the graittude of the country for bringing this
matter before the home. _ _

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

fADVERTISTaIENT.I—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 letteis:
" Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk, June 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. FLAVELL." " Bury, Lancashire,
Aug. 17, 1851. Gentlemen,—Fora 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 an 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
less fatigue than I ever expected to be able to perform. I have
never bala return of my complaint. —I remain,&c., D.TrIOMAS."
bupported by testimonials from the celebrated Professors of
Chemistry, Dr. A udrew IJre ; Dr. Shorland ; Dr. Harvey
Dr. Campbell; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer ; Dr. Ingram
Lord Stuart de Decies ; the Dowager Countess of Castle-
stuart ; 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-
ing this invaluable food our readers are referred to Du Baa:res
advertisement in another part of this paper.

The jury returned a verdict of 'wilful murder,
and the coroner made out his warrant accordingly.
In the afternoon an examination took place be-
fore the magistrates, when the prisoner made the
following statement :--" The reason why I did it
was because she deceived me. I had promised her
marriage, and she consented. I went to her house
on Monday evening, but she was not at home. I left
about nine, o'clock. I went again on Tuesday at six
o'clock, and she was not at home then. I went there
again and stopped till a quarter past ten, when she re-
turned home. I went into the front room, and asked
her the reason of this unpleasantness. She said it was
my own fault. I said, 'Be it so.' I said, 'Give me a
decided answer, yes or no, and I will leave you for ever.'
She said, 'No, Stephen, I will meet you tomorrow
(Wednesday) evening, precisely at eight o'clock. Sbe
did not meet me, however. This morning at seven I
saw her again. She said, Stephen, forgive me. Tsaid,
No, I can't.' I had kept company with her two years.
I never had a mis-word till last Tuesday evening."
He was then committed for trial at the next asslzes.

T.H.E COTTON SUPPLY AND INDIAN

RIVER NAVIGATION.

We are requested to publish the following copy of a
memorial frouu the Manchester Cbamher of Commerce
to Lord Palmerston, with Lord Palmerston's reply :
" To the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Palmerston,
K.G., M.P., &c., &c.,
" The memorial of the Directors of the Chamber of
.Commerce and Manufactures at Manchester shewetb,
" That among the measures which have been proposed for
developing the resources of India, and obtaining increased
supplies of cotton from that country, there is probably none
which promises more ample or more speedy advantazes
than the navigation of the great rivers of that country by
steam, whereby the productions of the interior would find
an easy outlet to the coast, and a superior inlet would be
afforded for British manufactures.

"That the main impediments heretofore subsisting to
the effectual and profitable navigation of Indian rivers by
steam, has been their shallowness at certain seasons, but
that this difficulty has been overcome by an expedient pro-
posed by Mr. Bourne, civil engineer, whereby the cargo,
instead of being placed in the steamer herself, which would
sink her too deeply in the water, is placed in a succession
of shallow barges properly attached to the steamer, where-
by a large carrying capacity is reconciled with a shallow
draught.
"That Mr. Bourne's proposal has been submitted to the
most eminent engineers of this country, and t 3 a number
of the most distinguished Indian officers, who have all tea•
tified to the great advantages which the introduction of it
into India would afford ; that his arrangements have been
tested practically with satisfactory results ; and that, as
far back as 1849, your memorialists, in common with other
commercial bodies throughout the kingdom, addressed a
memorial to the directors of the East India Company,
urging upon them the great public importance of so far en-
couraging Mr. Bourne's proposals as to enable them to be
practicall3 carried out.
"That your memorialists have, ever since that time,
looked upon this scheme for promoting internal transport
in India with the greatest solicitude; that they consider
the wide introduction into India of such improved modes
of communication as will enable large quantities of bulky
commodities to be carried through long distances at
a small expense, as the indispensable antecedent of any
solid or permanent improvement in the condition of India ;
that water conveyance is the cheapest of any mode of con-
veyance yet known . and that in Mr. Bourne's plan for
navigating the Indian rivers, whereby many thousands of
miles could be immediately opened up without any con-
siderasble outlay, they recognise a means of speedily reali-
sing this important desideratum.
" That your memorialists are informed by Mr. Bourne
that a company has been formed in London to carry out
this plan of navigation in India, and that he, on behalf of
that company, has applied to the directors of the Honour-
able the East India Company for such terms of encoura ze-
ment as he considers would enable them to carry out the
design, but that he has not yet received any definite
answer, and that the delays which have occurred are most
injurious and discouraging to the said company.
" That your memorialists are fully persuaded that if, in
1819, when this expedient for opening up the resources of
India was urged upon the Indian authorities, some step
bad been taken for carrying it into practical effect, an im-
portant impulse would by this time have been given to the
production and improvement of Indian cotton.
"Calling to mind your lordship's patriotic desire to
multiply the sources of supply of raw cotton, believing
that India, under wise and necessary reforms, would be
enabled not only to produce an immense increase in cotton
and all other articles of export, but to absorb, in con-
sumption a corresponding increase in the manufactures of
this kingdom, convinced that the means of cheap trans-
port is an absolute essential toward such a desirable con-
summation, and that Mr. Bourne's scheme is well calcu-
lated to provide it, your memorialists earnestly pray that
your lordship may use your powerful influence towards
hastening the directors of the Honourable Company and
the Board of Control to a favourable decision with respect
to it, and granting to it such legitimate assistance as its
merits deserve, and as, in the opinion of this board, the
tree interests, both of India and Great Britain, require.—
And, as in duty bound, So.,
(Signe.l), " TEC.IIIt3 BAZLEY, President,"
" Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures,
Manchester, April 30, 181.
"My Lord,—l place in your lordship's hands a memo-
rial from the directors of this chamber, praying for your
lordship's intercession on a subject which, they fear, has
encountered, and is still experiencing, an apathy which is
injurious to the interests both of India and this country.
Your lordship will believe that, in advocating Mr. Bourne's
scheme for river navigation in India, the memorialists
have no other object in view than the public good ; but
they see in it so strong a probability of real usefulness,that
they do not hesitate in invoking your lordship's aid as the
First Minister of the Crown.—l have the honour to
be, &c.,

TLIONAS BAzLEY, President."
(REPLY.)
" Downing-street, May 2, 1857.
"Lord Palmerston presents his .compliments to Mr.
Bazley, and begs to acknowledge the receipt of his letter,
dated the 30th ult., and of the accompanying memorial of
the directors of the Chamber of Commerce and Manufac-
tures at Manchester.
"Lord Palmerston begs to assure the directors that the
subject referred to in their memorial shall receive duo con-
sideration from her Majesty's Government.

FIRE ON BOARD SHlP.—About 11 o'clock on Wednes-
day night an alarming fire broke out on board the ship
Henry Moore (1,225 tout), Captain Stewart, of Loudon,
fitting out in Mem..;. Young's dry dock, Limehouss.
Serious consequences were fur a time apprehended, but
by dint of exertions the flames were got under, and the
damage confined to the parts previously enumerated,
which were partly deetroyed,