The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-25 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING- AUGUST' 25, 1857.

ss was hie friend Vice-
Chancellor Wood) who.
oouola very different from Mr.
Walpole his
to the church. Then,
friend of -political bias,' was, like him, a strong
again, OW"'
cue church, nd would not be disposed to do
anr. using which be thought at all likely to detract from
its sefe;lness. The commission having made their
report, the announcement was made more than once by
the ge overnment that a measure would be introduced to
carry the recommendations of the commissioners into
effe,ct. A bill was accordingly introduced in the year
; it was revived in the two succeeding years ; this
yr..:ar it was again introduced, and after very great
discussion in their lordships' house and in the other
house, the bill had received the approbation of both
houses of parliament. Again, it was said that these
amendments came before them at a very bite period of
the session. What did that mean ? Was there any un-
necessary delay in introducing the bill into that house ?
On the contrary, it was introduced on the first day that
was available ; it was discussed in the other house of
Parliament as soon as possible; it was discussed there
hour after hour, and night after night, with most praise-
worthy pertinacity, and it now came back to their
lordships for the consideration of the amendments. To
say that a bill could not be passed under such circum-
stances would be to say in effect that no bill could ever
be passed which had undergone much discussion and
amendment in the other house of Parliament. (Hear.)
The question now to be decided was not whether the
amendments were satisfactory, but whether they should
be considered. He did trust that their lordships would
not yield to the motion of his noble friend, but would at
once proceed to the consideration of the amendments.
Lord ST. LEONARDS said the question was not
what were the merits of the amendments, but whether,
when their lordships' hours were numbered, they had
sufficient time for considering them. He had asked the
Lord Chancellor whether he was prepared to maintain
the amendments as they stood, and understanding that he
was, he felt compelled to vote with his noble friend (Lord
Redesdale). Nothing could have induced him to do so
had they not been asked to accept the amendments in-
stead of considering them in the ordinary manner.
Their lordships should consider the position of noble
lords who assisted in passing the bill as it went down to
the Commons, and who were now absent, having had no
reason to suppose that such important alterations would
be made. He did not blame the Government for the
delay which had occurred, but nevertheless it was a fact
that there never was a great social measure which under-
went greater alterations at a late period of the session.
As regarded the original court, he entirely approved of
the alterations made in its constitution. But what was
to be sai 1 with regard o the proposed local courts The
whole thing might well be laughed at. (Hear, hear.)
The House of Commons declared by an abstract resolu-
tion that they would have local ,courts' which would
bring relief to every man's door. He deprecated the
spread of courts of divorce over the whole land ;
and though he desired to see the remedy extended to
the poor as well as the rich, he did not wish to see
every possible facility given for obtaining divorce. The
House of Commons having determined that there should
be local courts, the question where they were to get
them. It was first proposed to resort to the county courts
but that proposition /vas immediately scouted. It was
afterwards determined to have the matter to a judge at
assize, or to quarter sessions, or to a Queen's counsel, Or
a serjeant-at-law, to ha named by a judge. As to the
quarter sessions, it was ludicrous to talk of it. Why one
case of divorce wool f occupy more time than was ordi-
narily consumed by the whole sitting. Let theirlerdehips
conceive of country magistrates, whose time was so
limited, being called upon to add divorce cases to the
usual business of quarter sessions. Moreover, he should
like to hear what courts of quarter sessions generally
knew abut the procedure of the ecclesiastical courts in
relation to divorce, or how they were qualified to decide
such questions as alimony, and the maintenance, educa-
tion, and custody of the children, Divorce was a thing
which magistrates at quarter sessions could not cope with
—the attempt to do so must inevitably break down.
Then again, with regard to judges at assize, he never was
more astonished than he was at the proposal to add the
trial of divorce cases to their duties. He would appeal
to his noble and learned friend near him (Lord Campbell)
whether the moment a question of detail—for example, a
question of account—arose at assizes, it were not cus-
tomary for the judges to say, " We have not time to hear
it, the case must go to arbitration I" Supposing there
were all the necessary appliances, it would be nothing
extraordinary if a divorce case occupied a week. But
where were the appliances to be found? Where were the
judges or the counsel at nisi prius who were familiar
with the procedure of the ecclesiastical courts I Again, if
the judge deputed a Queen's counsel or a serjeant-at-law
to discharge his functions, how was this to be done when
there was no court f How was a jury to be summoned ?
Whoever framed that part of the bill must b 3 con-
tented to be told that it could not possibly work.
The result would be that divorce cases would
have to be carried to the. court of appeal, where they
ought to be taken in the first instance. As to
the fees to be paid to the persons entrusted with the per-
formance of these duties, he should like to know whence
they were to come. It could hardly be intended to throw
the burden on the country ; while on the other hand, if
the suitor had to pay them he would be placed in a worse
position than other suitors who bad courts provided fur
them at the public eupense. Their lordships had neither
the knowledge, the material, nor the time to decide on

the proper constitution of these courts, and he would sug-
gest that the clause should be struck out, on the under-
standing that a bill should be brought in next session to
settle the form of jurisdiction. The next important clause
was that which settled the causes which would entitle a
woman to a divorce. This question had been most care-
' fully considered by their lordships in the house, and by
the select committee upstairs. By the bill introduced in
1856, a woman was entitled to a divorce only in cases of
incestuous adultery or bigamy. When the present bil'
was referred to the select committee a great many ques•
tions were mooted. It was proposed to allow rape as
one ground, but the committee decided against that ;
the other new grounds now in this bdi were not even
mooted, and the house ought not to pass a bill stained
with such terms. This bill would be placed in the hands
of the purest women of England, and they ought to have
some respect for them. There was another case which
required great consideration before it was adopted, the
case of adultery committed in the conjugal dwelling;
this eas borrowed from the French law, which allowed
a separation if the husband teok a concubine into the
common dwelling. There was, however, no instance of
such a thing in this country, and there was no necessity
to provide for it; the point was considerei by the com-
mittee upstairs, and they unanimously agreed not to in-
sert the provision. The effect of it would be to give a
woman who wished to get rid of her husband the oppor-
tunity of doing so ; she would only have to get a clever
lady's.maid, and throw temptation in his way. They had
already given women greater guards than ever she had
before, and they ought not to go any further, and give her
too much power. The next point was as to the action of
crirn. con. He had in committee proposed clauses to abolish
that action, but to give the jury power in certain cases to
award the husband damages from the adulterer. Consi-
derable discussion arose, and it was at last agreed to
aboli,h the action. The question then arose what was to
be substituted, and in the bill as it went down the court
was empowered to impose a fine on the adulterer, and
order him to pay the whole or any part of the costs.
The House of Commons struck out the power to impose
a fine, but inserted a clause that in certain cases the pe-
titioner might claim damages, his claim to be tried in an
action. He (Lord St. Leonerd,) had read the clause
several times', and he was utterly unable to perceive how
that would differ from the old action of trim. con. There
was, indeed, a proviso that the court should have power
to direct hew the fine was to be disposed of, and might
order a portion to be settled on the wife or children.
They had abolished the action of min. con, because they
believed it to be a disgrace to their jar's' radence, whin
it had been compulsory on the part of the husband to
bring that action, but it would now be voluntary, and
there would be every inducement to collusion between
him and the wife, to obtain a provision for her at tee
expsnse of the adulterer; and he coull do so without
a4sing for a judicial separation. The only le nalieiug
question was that as to the position of the clergy under
this bill. He had the greatest respect for the conscience
of every man, but he could not consent to place the
clergy in opposition to the law. If they believed the re•
marriage of an adulteress to be against the law of God,
let them retrace their steps; but if they believed it was
not, let there be no exception, but make that the law
which had been done for 200 years, without any ol jsc-
tion on the part of the clergy. By the bill as it stood
parties were enabled to be married before a registrar, and
might, if they wished, afterwards get the sanction of the
Church by a religious ceremony ; but it was optional
with a clergyman to perform it or not. In his opinion no
such exception should be, it would lead to endless mis-
chief. Fancy the position of a cle-gynaan who would be
forced to give the use of his church atter refusing to per-
form the ceremony. He would not support such a prs-
also, as he believed it hostile to the best interests of the
country- He would support the motion of his noble
friend (Lord Redesdale), because he objsc'ed to having
the amendments of the House of Commons forced in
wholesale upon them.
Earl GRANVILLE said the noble and learned lord
and the noble baron who moved the amendment were
fully justified in entering into the merits of the amend-
ments, but the question before the house was whether
they would then go into the consideration of them or
postpone them for six months, and he therefore did not
feel called upon to fellow all the details, more especialle
as if the amendment now moved was carried, the bill
would be postponed for this session. The noble" ler I
who moved the amendment said his object was to venti-
late the subject ; but it was possible to ventilate a ques-
tion too much. But he never remembered a measure
that had been so fully discussed in both houses ; and
with a delicate question so closely connected with the
social
i happinesst shouldb eanddecided
once,
a nde ohpol ec, s desir-
able
not
see
any public advantage from the postponement of the hid.
With regard to the period of the session, that could only
be considered as it affected the attendance of their lord

ships during the session, and he had stflom seen so
many present as at that moment, an-I if some of the
moot eminent members of that house were absent, he
believed it was owing to the fact that they in the main
agreed with the Government. (Hear, hear.)
The E trl of CARNARVON (who rose amidst cries
of "Question") said that he would not detai❑ the house
for more than a minute. The bill contained 73 causes,

of which 59 were either new or altered causes; 5 clauses
were struck out ; clauses were entirely added by the
other house ; 33 clauses had bean altered, of which 19

had been altered materially and 14 verbaly. After this
simple analysis he thcught it impo,sible to call this the
original bill. (Hear, hear.)

After a few words from EArl GRANVILLE, their lc rd-
ships divided—

- For the amendment. 44
Against
The LORD CHANCELLOR then proceeded to state
tie nature of the amendments which had been made in

the clauses. On coming to the clause which gives jade
diction in cases of judicial separation to the judges of
assize and courts of quarter sessions, the noble and
learned lord said that, admitting the principle of local
jurisdiction, he could not conceiye any better local tri-
bunal for this purpose than the judges of assize. He did
not believe the practise of postponing cases in c-nse-
queues of the pressure of business by the judges of assise
was as common as had been represented. He had heard
of euch a thing, but after some practice as a judge of
assize he must say he never saw as yching of it. Any
difficulty of that kind, however, woull be provided for
by the new rules and regulations which it would be in
the power of the court to make; one of which rules
would ne doubt provide that petitions should be pre-
sented in sufficient time, so that the judges might know
what ceuees of the sort were coming on. With regard
to the court of quarter sessions the feelings of the House
of Commons was, no doubt, this—that the poor should
have a court of easy access as well as the rich for the
decision of these cases. The gentlemen who presided
over those courts were cognisant of the feelings and
habits of the persons who resorted to thorn No doubt
these courts were open to objection, as any local tribunal
they could constitnte would be; but as the principle of
the bill was left rant( uched, and as something must be
left experimental, he trusted their lordships would not
object to the giving of jurisdiction in these cases to the
courts of quarter sessions. They proposed the best ma-
chinery at their hands, and if that was found inefficient
they must try some other.
Lord MONTEAGLE said the prir&ple of the bill
was to give a better tribunal for the trial of divorce
cases, hut the bill as it now stood not only failed to give
an improved tribunal, but by a most ingenious process
it extracted from the old tribunal all that was worst, and
combined therewith elements of mischief peculiar to the
bill itself. He thought it likely that it would pro-
duce infinite confusion if in addition to the primary
duties of judges of assize this new jurisdiction was
to be cast upon them. But in selecting the courts
of quarter sessions for determining these questions of
marriage and the support of the children, and the provi-
sion to be made for the wife, he thought they selected
that tribunal which beyond all others possessed every
possible disaivautage. (Hear.) He spoke in the pre-
sence of those who took part in the proceedings of the
proceedings of the courts of quarter seseions, and he put
it to them individually whether they felt competent to
carry the provisions of the bill into effect. Would any
peer rise up and say that he felt competent to do so ?
Would the noble marquis who was so familiar with the
business of the court of quarter sessions (Salisbury) say
that he felt competent ! Would you, my, lord, or you?
He made this appeal nominal because he knew if every
peer was to vote in accordance with his personal feelings
how tho decision would be 1 His noble and learned
friend recommended this change because the tribunal was
cheap ; but an article was not cheap at any price if it
was bad, and he believed this tribunal came under that
description. He did not object to the gisting of jurisdic-
tion to the recorders, who were learned men selected by
the crown, but he had a strong objection to the giving it
to the courts of quarter sessions, which, he believed,
would not give satisfaction. He therefore moved to omit
the words, "or to the courts of quarter session'.
The Earl of HARD WICKE said that the courts of
quarter sessions performed their duties at present with
satisfaction, but that would not be the case if these courts
had to discharge the duties which this bill would cast
upon them. Is was ridiculous to expect that the gentle-
men woo dispensed justice in those courts would be able
to decide the nice and delicate questions of law which
they would be called upon to decide under this bill. He
did not think that the di-tinction drawn by the noble
lord of courts for the rich and courts for the poor would
be received with satisfaction by the people of England.
In times gone by, when Whig gentlemen were out of
office, and were pandering, as Whigs did, to popular out-
cries—(laughter)—they spoke of the magistracy as in-
competent, and that it would be better to have a paid
body of magistrates. If this bill passed it was very likely
indeed that the magistracy would be found incompetent
to discharge these novel duties, and then there would be
a glorious opportunity of introducing the principle of a
paid ma agistraey.
Lord WYNFO RD said the principle of the bill, as it
left their lordships' house, was to give exclusive jurisdic-
tion to a particular court ; but if the courts of quarter
sessions were to have jurisdiction, it could no longer be
said that the bill proceeded on the principle of giving
exclusive jurisdiction. The constitution of these c marl
and their mode of conducting business wholly unfitted
them for dealing with divorce cases. What would be-
come of uniformity of decision, when judges of assiz'a
recorders, and courts of quarter sessions all dealt with
these cases ( Rear.)
Earl POWYS said that chairmen of quarter sessions
had a right to protest against an important clans of
duties being thrust upon them, as was proposed by this
bill, involving points of law of which they had no special
knowledge. The business would be chiefly in, the heeds
of attorneys, not perhaps of a very reputable class, who
woul I be constantly striving to set husband against wife
in village communities, for the sake of making business.
(gear, hear.) Great injury, too, would result from the
public discussion at every quarter sessions of cases of
this kind.
Earl FORTESCUE, while agreeing that the judges
of assize and recorders were as c mapetent as any court
could be to deal with Tuitions of divorce, saw great ob-
jection
in allowing courts of quarter sessions to decide
upon those cases.
The Duk of SOMERSET also thought it unwise to
delegate this power to the quarter sessions, and hoped
that the Government would give way on this point.
Earl GRANVILLE said that, as the feeling of the
house appeared t I be almost universal against this por-
tion of the clause, he would not insist on the retention
of the words "court of quarter sessions for the county or
borough."
The LORD CHANCELLOR altered the clause as
proposed, and intoduced corresponding alterations in
some subsequent clauses.
Lord ST. LEONARDS took objections to the fees
that would be chargeable in the assize courts, and urged
that they would be a hardship on poor men. He also
objected to that part of the clause which authorised the
judges to refer questions of divorce to members of the
bar.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that in every
commis,ion of assize there were associated with the judges
all the Queen's counsel and sergeants who went the cir-
cuits ; and the clause only provided that the same course
should be pursued with regard to these causes. It was
extremely unlikely that an important divorce cause would
be lest to be tried by a Queen' is counsel; the proviso was
only introduced to meet au emergency, and to preserve
the form of the commission the same as at present.
After a few words from 'Lord ST. LEOTARDS, his
amendment was negatived without a division.
Tne amendment of the Commons in the clause consti-
tuting the court was then agreed to.
Some further amendments were discussed, but in a
tone so purely o inversational that the purport of the dis-
cussion could not be gathered.
On clause 25,
Lord ST. LEONARDS moved the omission .of the
words "adultery committed in the conjugal dwelling."
The Duke of ARGYLL, though he retained his predi-
lection for the Scottish rule of the equality of the sexes,
was fully prepared to admit the difference as to crimina-
lity between adultery committed by the husband and
adultery committed by the wife. In Scotland they never
found a woman suing simply on the ground of thiltery,
unless that adultery was coupled with desertion.
Lord MONTEAGLE supported the motion. In cases
like these it ought to be the object of the Legislature to
thinyth imagine anything
guard against collusion, which was, in point of fact, a
proposer of the words under
morefrau likely
dupon
tothelead
l to
law.
collusionßu t coul could e
proposal of the
House of Commons! The
they
consideration bad entirely misunderstooi the enactment
of the French law which he had attempte 1 to copy. The
French law gave a woman
a right of divorce. in case her
husband obtruded his, mistress into the house ; but as the
clause stood a man might bring his concubine home, and
the wife would have no remedy unless she could prove
an act of adultery actually committed under her roof.
What could be more easy than for the adulterous
couple to live together to all intents and purposed in
the conjugal residence, and yet evade the law by
actually committing e'sewhere the offence which
would give the wife a remedy In fact the
clause, as it stood, was absolute nonsense. There
was a case in the " State Trials" in which a member of
their lordships' house, a long time ago, was convicted of
one of the most horrible offences ever heard of—of having
aided auuther man to commit a rap a in his own house
upon his own wife. Yet even an offence like that would
not entitle the wife to a divorce as the clause was now
worded. (Hear, hear.)

LoIcPREDEDA.LE pointed out the further objection
that a divorce be granted on the ground of rape,
and after wards a jury might decide that no such offence
had been committed.

The Earl of HARROWBY said it would no doubt be
better to replace with general words the words under dis-
CUSein. But what general words could they adopt•? The
truth was, that because they could not find terms that
would meet every case, they were asked to refuse the
wife a remedy in the cases to which the clause woull
Lard PORTMAN suggested that the ward " con-
victed" shoul I be inserted.

The Bishop of OXFORD—WouId the words "adul-
tery accompinied iu the opinion of the court with cir-
cum.itances of disgraceful exaggeration," meet the views
of Lard llatrowby ! (No, uo.)
The house divided—
Cantents 27
Non-contents
The Common,' amendment was thus rejected.
Lord ST. LEONARDS next moved to leave out the
weld "rape" and the words that followed.
Tile LORD CHANCELLOR said it would no doubt
be more agreeahld to moil, the words referred to; and the
view the Government
took of tho matter was,
that as these cases would be extremely rare, the injured
wife might NN•ry well be left to the remedy of a private
Nevcrthelesp, af:er the opinion expressed by the
Commons, he hoped their lordships wool I retain the
words. ,

After some eonvrsation the house divided—
C:intents 45

Non-contents
The Gunrnora amendment therefore Etand.
Oa clause 28.

29-16

The Bishcp of OXFORD moved to disagreo with the
C intuons' anatndurent, striking out that portion of the
clause which provided that the husband guilty of adu!-
tery should not be enabled to sue for divorce. lie niove,l

that the house disagree with the amendment, by which
the words, "guilty of adultery, or ba3 been," were
struck out.

Tho house divided—

29
. 35 —4
CoTmhmeoncE.tlkuse, therefore, remains as .amended by tLe

Contents ..:.
Nun-contents

Lord sr. LEONARDS moved to disagree with the

Commons' amendinest to clause 30, the effect of the
amendment beiog pract:cally to maintain the action of

er m. con.
T :e LORD CHANCELLOR ::aid clause 7, which
the Commons had inserted, practically maintained the
action of crim. con. When the Lill was before their
lordships he gave way on that point to the opinion
generally expressed by their lordship, but he was much
struck with the argument of Lord Wensleydale, that
there were eases in which the husband suffered greet
pecuniary loss by the separation from his wife. He
moved that the Commons' tynendrnents be agreed with.
The Duke of ARGYLL supported the Commons'
amendroentß. At present the action for crim. can. wi s
r. sorted to in all cases because it was necessary, but un-
der this clause the fine, which was the substitute for that
action, woul I only be inflicted in those cases in which
the husban•l had sustained pecuniary I.)Fe.
Lord DUNGANNON supported Lerd St, Leonards'
amendment.
The Bish ,p of LINCOLN objected to the amendment
made by the COMIIIOIIB, considering actions for criminal
conversation highly tihje,ctionable.
The Earl of bONOUGHNIORE also objected to the
amendment.
Lord REDESDALE said the amendment was an en-
couragement to husbands to commence actions for da-
mages on account of his wife's guilt.
Tae Bishop of OXFORD said that every one of the
evils which had been so eloquently pointed out as attach-
ing such actions would attach to the amendment which
had been made in the bill.
The Earl of HARROWBY defended the clause as
amended, and hoped their lordships would agree to it.
Tneir lordships then divided on the question whether
the Commons' amendment be agreed to, and the num-
bers were—
Content—Present
Proxies 45-77
Non-content—Present
Proxies 27-67-10
-

- - •
Lord ST. LEONARDS, with some warmtb,expressed
his surprise that the Government should have called
proxies. (Hear, hoar.) It was a violation of all under-
standing of the proceedings of the house. They were,
as it were, in committee, examining a bill clause by
clause. (Hear.) The noble earl, of course, could say
ho had a right to take that course' but no one could Pay
that the vote just taken was the decision of the bona:).
He had meant not to give any vote in opposition to the
Government iu this debate, but he did expect fair play.
(Hear.) But could it be said that this was a fair vote,
when my lord this or my lord that were called by their
tames to vote who had never heard a word of the clause
—(" Question," and " Order, order," and cheers) —and
which was carried by mere numbers V He complained
of the manner in which this clause had been carried, and
he believed the voice of the country would condemn it.
Earl GRANVILLE said the noble and learned lord
might take any course ho thought fit with regard to the
management of the business of the house on hs own side
of it ; but he owned he was surprised that the noble and
I,arned lord should object to proxies having been c tiled,
and in what he had said on the subject he had stated
several things which were not correct. This was not
the first time that a minority had complained of proxies
being called ; and in this very session the same com-
plaint was made by a noble lord ; and when he (Lord
Granville) was about to rise to justify the course taken
by the Government, he was anticipated by the noble earl
the leader of the other side, who rose and gave the noble
lord in question the greatest dressing that he ever sa w ad-
ministered. The house was not now in committee. When
the noble lord opposite (the Marquis of Bath) opposed
a previous amendment, with that fairness which always
characterised him, and on a division succeeded against
the view of the Government, he (Earl Granville did not
call fur proxies ; but the present was a question of far
greater importance, and believing that he and his col-
leagues were in the right, and that the rejection of the
amendment would endanger the passing of the bill iu the
other house, he should have neglected his duty if he bad
not called for proxies.
The Marquis of BATH complained that the proxies
had been used unfairly, without notice. It was only that
morning that they heard that proxies were to be called.
The Commons amendments were then agreed to.
On the el tuse which legalises the marriage of persons
divorced on the ground of adultery, but as amended by
the Commons relieving the clergyman from the necessity
of performing such marriages whoa he entertains con-
scientious objections to them,
Lord ST. LFONARDS proposed to introduce words
for the purpose of confining the clause to a present in-
stead of a prospective operation.
The Bishop of SALISBURY remarked that there
were cases where the clergy could not fairly feel a moral
repugnance to marry persons who had been divorced for
adultery, but believed that the effect of this clause
wculd be to introduce disorder amongst the clergy.
Indissolubility of marriage was the law of the church,
but the clergy had no right to complain if the legislature
made a law exempting certain persons from the opera-
tion of that law as far as their relations with the State
was concerned ; but they had no right to interfere to
prevent the church from carrying out its own laws in the
church. He appealed to their lordships not to constrain
the consciences of the clergy to do that which they be-
lieved contrary to the law of Christ. Let them make
these marriages a civil contract that they would provide
the relief required without doing anything to offend the
consciences of the clergy.
The Bishop of LONDON had no wish to go into the
question whether marriage was indissoluble by the law
of Christ. His opinion was that it was not indissoluble
by the law of Christ. lla believed that the clause had
been introduced and perhaps opposed by many under a
wrong impression. A great number of the clergy, it
was true, held that marriage was indissoluble, but a still
greater number thought there was an unsuitableness in
the solemn words of the wedding ceremony for the re•
marriage of adult,rers, and on that ground alone did
they object to perform the ceremony. He bil.eved, also,
that it was under such impression that a large number
of the clergy had signed the declaration, and it was on
that ground, and en no other, that he wished to have
the exemption here given become law. There were words
in the marriage service, perhaps, not suitable to such
marriages, and there being a vast number of the clergy
who believed that marriage was dissoluble, that marriage
after adultery ought to be dissolved, it was quite consis-
tent for such clergy to object to the use of the service
under certain cirbumstaucas. There had been four divi-
sions in that hou-,e, but their lordships had not thought
exemption expedient. The question went then to the
lower house, where the clergy should be thankful for
having obtained any concession. He should then advise
the clergy to accept the compromise offered by these two
clauses. (Hear ) If the present state of things was to go
on much longer he believed that public morality would
very much suffer, and therefore was be anxious that this
bill should pass. If anything should prevent it passing
this year the clergy might depend upon it they e ould
have little chance of exemption in a second. (Hear,
hear.) By law clergymen were obliged to marry
divorced parties at present, and as to the p insli church
clause, he did not think it at all likely that adulterous
parties would often put it into force by insisting on
being married in their own parish. It should not be
forgotten that there was a strong notion abroad that the
clergy wished to domineer over the laity, and the House
of Commons wished the principle that the church be-
longed as much to the people as the clergy to bo esta-
blished, and therefore had they inserted the second
clause. His advice to the cl-rgy was to accept both
clauses, as he believed they were the best compromise
that could be gut. (Hear, and cheers.)
Lord DUNGANNON supported the amentment. He
conscientiously believed the bill to be a most mischiev-
ous measure, and this clause one of the most mischievous
portions of the bill.

The Bishop of OXFORD was bound to say that the
whole principle upon which this immunity for the clergy
was asked fur was somewhat mistaken. It was supposed,
I apparently, that the clergy were asking to be free from
something to which other subjects were liable.. But the
truth was, that what was asked was that the clergy
should not be subjected to that from which all other
classes were free. Let them recollect that they were not
going to impose upon dissenting ministers the liability to
marry persons divorced. (Hear.) It was only the clergy
of one particular sect—the established church—who were
to be so liable. It was no answer to say that the fact of
their being ministers of the established church was a rea-
son for their being subjected to this duty. That might
have been a jast argument when a person could not
have married except through the established church,
but now that dis,enting ministers were placed on
the same footing as ministers of the church, b con-
verso, the latter ought not to be subjected to liabilities
to which the former were not eubject. He would ven -
tura to submit to their lordships that this was not a case
in which the government ought to use proxies, and he
did so because this was a matter so much of detail, that,
altlough the prinriple involved was a great one, a noble
lord who held a-proxy could not say for certain which
way the nobleman whose proxy he held would himself
have'voted. For his own part he would rather sea no' h-
ing whatever granted to the clergy than sea the bill in
its present shape. There was not a wcrd in the clause
staying the bishop, and he would not hesita'e to say that
if he knew of any one of these interlopers coming to a
church, he would meet him at tise church door by staying
him with a prohibition. His object was to prevent the
revival of the old Fleet cuarrias,ies. Who was it, that
would come ist ) a parish to perform these marriages ?
Why, it was only the wretched, skulking man, who was
lying away from the parish on account of debt, hardly
venturing to show his face anywhere, and he would come
merely to get the miserable fee which he might obtain
by intruding into the parish of his brother clergyman
who was spending all his strength for the good of his
flack. Often had he heard measures objected to in that
house, on the grsund that they would interfere with the
discipline of the clergy; but was anything ever before
contemplated equal to the sending into a parish a man
who had no qual fication whatever, except that for a cer-
tain reward he was ready to do a c=rtain job, which he
knew to be most hateful to those who were labouring
thsre in spiritual thin 4e ? He besought their lordships
not to adept this p 'dist) of the clause; and if that were
adopted, he should beseech them to reject altogether the boor, which would be a new disgrace and a
new division of the clergy of the established church.
Their lordships then divided—
Contents
Non-contents ,• 32
•
Majority for the amendment of the House of
Commons
The Bishop of OXFORD then moved that their lord-
ships should disagree to the clause in foto.
The Earl of CARNARVON supported the motion,
observing that it would have been better if the Govern-
ment had denied all concession than attempted to disarm
hostility by such means. •
Lord REDESDALE also supported the motion. Had
the clause came back without the addition, ho should
have accepted it as a boon. As it stood, he felt bound
to oppose it. He did not believe any honourable clergy.

man would seek to perform marriage in a brother clergy-
man's church against his will.
The house then divided—
Contents
Non•contents 27-40
The clause as amended was theref re agreed to.
The other amendments of the Commons were then
agreed to, and their lordships adjourned at ten minutes
psst one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at 3 o'clock.
THE ANN WILSON—EMIGRANT VESSEL.
Mr. COBBErT asked Mr. Secretary Labouchere,
whether he had received any information with regard to
an emigrant vessel called the Ann Wilson, which sailed
from the Port of Liverpool on the 29th day of November
last ; particularly as regarded the alleged overcrowded
state of that vessel, the short supply of water, provisions
and medical comforts on board, and the fatal effects that
ensued ; and whether any inquiry had been or would be
made into the fact.?

Mr. LABOUCEIERE said that no official informa•
tion had been re-..eived from the colony, but application
was made to the owners on the Government being made
aware of the circumstances, and an answer was returned
stating that she was properly provisioned, and although
she was surveyed for 186 adults, she only took out 169.
He thought there must be some misapprehension about
the matter. An inquiry would be instituted, and if the
owners were found'to blame, proceedings would be inst.!.
tuted against them for the recovery of the usual penalties.

THE GERMAN LEGION.
Sir DE L. EVANS asked whether the German Le-
gion settlers at the Cape of Good Hope were at present
in receipt of full pay as troops embodied, or the rate of
pay specified in the army estimate for this year ; and
also, what was the present numerical force of that corps,
of all ranks

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the German Legion
at the Cape had been called out as soldiers, and they
were in receipt at this time of full pay. He hoped their
embodiment would enable the Governor of the Cape to
send a large number of the Cape troops to India. The
German Legion numbered 2,300.

AMALGAMATION OF THE WEST INDIA AND
AUSTRALIAN MAIL COMPANIES.
Mr. J. LOCKE, in the absence of Mr. Conirg-
harm, asked the Secretary 'of the Treasury, in
what manner, if not officially, the Amalgama-
tion of the West Indian and Australian Mail Companies
had come before him ; also, whether the chairman of
the West Indian Ma 1 Company had not obtained the
consent of its shareholders to an Amalgamation with the
Australian Mail Company, under a more or less posi-
tive assurance that the existing Government contracts
would be further extended without competition for two
years ; and whether this was to be considered as a Go-
vernment guarantee for the sum of 910,0001. out of the
public purse for services to be performed in the years
1862 and 1863?.

Mr. WILSON said no amalgamation of the companies
would be agreed to, that was not for the interest of the
public, The usual postal guarantee would be given in
this instance.

COMMUNICATION WITH DUBLIN.
Mr. CORRY asked the Secretary to the Treasury
whether the terms of the contract for improving the
communication between London and Dublin had been
finally settled ; and, if so, whether the contract had
been executed : Also, what steps the Government had
taken towards providing suitable accommodation, and
the necessary appliances for the embarkation and land-
ing of mails and passengers at Kingstown and Holy-
head I

Mr. WILSON said this negotiation had now been
brought to a close, and the conditions of a contract to
be drawn up and executed had been signed by the chair-
men of the respective railway companies. The necessary
arrangements for carrying out the contract would be
entered into, but it would take two years before they
could come into operation. Four vessels would have to
be built, and extensive arrangements would have to be
made with a view of carrying out the contract ; and two
years, it was thought, would be the shortest period in
which they could be efficiently concluded.
Sir D. NORREYS asked how long the Government
had been occupied in
„bringing about an arrangement
that would take two years to complete ? (Laughter.)
Mr. WILSON said the act under which the arrange-
ment was made was passed in 1855, and he entered into
details to show that the Government had lost no time
in bringing it about.