The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-04 00:00:00

SUN, ND 'N WEDNESDA EVENING, MA. IR nt 4 1857

LIVERPOOL RACES.--(This Day).

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

Mr.: Paidl

Leasing
Companies

°losing Prices Bas
yesterday. thLs

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY

£5O. PLATE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock.
THE CAPTURE OF THE PERU.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a petition
from a gentleman named Dillon, praying for compen-
sation, which he claimed under the following circum-
stances :—ln 1822 the petitioner was an officer in the
Coastguard, stationed on the coast of Ireland. One night,
when it was blowing hard, he observed a large
vessel sailing under cover of the cliffs. Suspecting the
character of the craft he took the necessary means to go
on board. The crew of the vessel observing his move-
ments endeavoured to escape, but Mr. Dillon and his
party opened fire upon her. He was unable to board her,
but pursued her into Kinsale, where she was
boarded by the Custom-house officers, and she proved to
be a large American brig, called the Peru, a
notorious smuggler, Her cargo was seized and
sold, and realised nearly 60,000/. The petitioner
claimed his share of the proceeds of the sale, but
from the time of the capture until the present day his
claim was repudiated on several grounds, the principal
of which was that he had never boarded the ship. The
noble earl concluded by moving for certain papers con-
nected with the transaction.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to say
that there would be great difficulty in producing the
papers, owing to the length of time that had elapsed
since the affair of which the petitioner complained.
The motion was not pressed, but the petition was
ordered to lay on the table.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said that with one or two variations
it was substantially the same bill as that which had
passed their lordships' house last session. It would be
in the recollection of their lordships that some years ago
a royal commission was issued directed to the Lord Chief
Justice, to Dr. Lushington, Mr. Walpole, the noble lord
at the table (Lord Redesdale), and several other persons,
with a view to an inquiry on the subject of divorce, and
in order to see whether they could make any sugeestiens
which would enable the Legislature to get rid of the
anomaly of private acts of Parliament for dissolving mar-
riages in cases of adultery. The commissioners made an
elaborate report, and recommended that the no.tor. of
~64..;.;..6- F. iv.Le acts ot Parliament in cases of divorce
a vinculo matrimonii should be abolished, and a court
constituted, in which when the circumstances which
were now required to be proved in order to obtain a
bill of divorce, in their lordship? house, were proved
before that tribunal, it should have power to
grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. In pursuance of
the recommendations of that report he prepared the bill
which was introduced into their lordship? house, and
which bavicg been read a second time was referred to a
select committee. The select committee had the assist-
acce of several right rev, prelates, and all the law lords,
and several other noble lords, the subject being one not
more for lawyers than laymen, inasmuch as it dealt more
with a social question than, strictly speaking, a law re-
form. A noble and learned friend of his made a mo-
tion in the select committee extending the relief of the
bill to married women diverced only a mensa et thoro,
and not a vinculo matrimonii ; so that they should
be enabled to have the duties and benefits of single
persons; and a clause was introduced to enable mar-
ried women separated from their husbands by a decree
of the Ecclesiastical Court, but not divorced a vinculo
matrimonii, to have the privilege of single persons ;
so that they might trade, preventing their husbands
from returning to them and taking possession of any
property they might acquire. That clause was much
discussed, but eventually adopted by the committee and
by the house. The bill enacted that a court should be
constituted, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the two
Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, and the Dean of the
Arches, an ecclesiastical judge, who wouli be called the
ordinary judge, and would sit for the ordinary purposes
of the court; that is, that he should have power to deal
with all matters, except divorces a vinculo matrimonii,
just as the Ecclesiastical Court did now; but in all cases
of divorces a vinculo matrimonii, and where it was sought
to enable the parties to marry again, three of the judges
of the court, of whom the Dean of the Arches was to be
one, would be necessary to constitute the tribunal. The
course of proceeding would be, that the witnesses would
be examined orally, and the court would have power to
send issues to be tried by juries. The judge ordinary,
therefore, would have all the powers now exercised
by the judge of the Ecolesiastical Court, and he, with
other members of the court now to be constituted,
would have the power now exercised by their lord-
ships of granting a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and
enabling the parties to marry again. That was the bill
as he now proposed to introduce it, except with a diffe-
rence which he would proceed to state. When the bill
was before their lordships, after it had returned from the
select committee, a right rev, prelate, the Bishop of Ox-
ford, moved a proviso, which was carried, that in cases
of divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, though the parties
should be at liberty to marry again, yet that the adul-
terer should not be able to marry the adulteress. Their
lordships carried that proviso almost by acclamation, but
as he (the Lord Chancellor) was now introducing a bill
in which he was responsible for what the Government
thought best to be done, he had left out that priviso,
leaving it to their lordships to insert it if they thought fit.
He objected to it because it inflicted agreat injuryon the
woman, and in ordinary cases would be a great boon to
the adulterer; and in those cases in which a elan of hon-
our might be desirous of making all the reparation in his
I power to a woman he bad injured, that clause entirely re.
[ Bared, or rather prevented, him from doing so. There was
another reason why it was not convenient that this proviso
should be inserted in the bill. In the private acts in
their lordship? house for the dissolution of marriages
such a proviso was always introduced, although it wes
well known that it was universally and invariably struck
out in the other house. What reason, then, was there
to suppose that such a provision would be allowed to re-
main in a general bill, when it was regularly struck out
by the other house in all particular private bide ? That
was one of the changes he proposed to make in the bill
as it passed their lordships last year. There was another
clause which he had introduced into the present bill,
which he could not but think most desirable, although
he had met with no encouragement from their lordships
on the subject when he introduced it a fortnight ago; be
meant that which legalised by enactment deeds of separa-
tion between husband and wife. Such deeds had been
held to be valid by the courts, and Lord Cottenhane on
one occasion interfered, by injunction, to restrain a per-
son who was a party to a deed of this kind from taking
proceedings in the ecclesiastical court. Ile was aware that
the deeds in question did not state that the persons who
were parties to them were separated ; and his noble and
learned friend, the Chief Justice, had said that their pro-
visions were carried out by means of trustees. But if
persons agreed to live separately, there was no difficulty
in finding trustees by means of whom such a deed could
be entered into ; and it was substantially an agreement
between husband and wife : for some one covenanted on
behalf of each of them to abide by the terms of the deed.
He proposed that, without this complicated machinery,
it should be lawful for persons to make such a deed, and
registering it would make it valid in any of our courts.
It was an old proverb that if you could not get people
to conform to the law the law must conform to usage ;
these deeds were now a practice, and he did not see why
that should not be done directly which was already done
indirectly. These were the only two differences between
this bill and that of last year ; and, having stated so
much, he should content himself with moving the second
reading of this bill.
Lord LYNDHURST was satisfied of the justice of
this bill. The law, as it stood now, was only available
to the wealthy. Who but a rich husband could sustain
an action for divorce ? Was not this a crying injustice ?
In Scotland the law extended a remedy to the poor as
well as the rich. Why should not an Englishman enjoy
the same privileges ? He wished an alteration in the
measure, that a woman when abandoned by her husband
for some years should be ipso facto entitled to a divoree a
mensa et thoro. He had heard pitiable details of the
position of many miserable women under such circum-
stances. Would their lordships refuse them both mercy
and justice ? The principle of voluntary separation was
one he objected to. It ought not to be facilitated. The
law bad never recognised it. True that the Court of
Chancery had enforced agreements for maintenance, but
that practice had been brought about by error and de-
pended on custom. The courts regarded such contracts
as contrary to the policy of the law, which was to pro-
tect men in the discharge of their duties, not assist them
in avoiding them. Let theirlordships then refuse to make
law what the law refused to sanction—what was, in fact,
in direct opposition to the law of marriage.
The Bishop of EXETER said a bill such as that before
their lordships ought to carry justice to all classes. Such
was not the case. Its jurisdiction was exclusive. The
court sat in Westminster. How could a poor Cornish
husband come there for redress ? If it was not to be a
mockery the court must be carried down into the coun-
try. The rights of the people were interfered with. The
ecclesiastical law was to be administered by this West-
minster court, but only one of the judges was an ecclesi-
astical judge. All the others were to be of the common
law and equity bar. The religion as well as the rights of
the people were attacked. The law of divorce was the
law of the Church of Rome—the unreformed Church of
Rome. The question was surrounded by difficulties.
Constantine first gave to the husband a power of di-
vorce from an adulterous wife, but he refused it to
the wife for adultery by the husband, unless accom-
panied by greatly aggravated circumstances. This
state of things lasted for 120 years. It was the
depraved Church of Rome that added the divorce a
mama et thoro. It was now proposed to inflict this cor-
rupt system on the Church of England. He was sorry
to see that the Lord Chancellor had not abolished the
action for cries. con., but he would be satisfied with a
separate act for that purpose, and the making adultery a
misdemeanour, the criminal being also amerced in the
costs of the prosecution. The bill ought not to pass in
the present ohape. They mast have a committee of
learned men to tell them what was the divine law, and
what had been the law of the Church in the best ages on
this subject. Meanwhile, he should move that the bill
be read that day three months.
Lord ST. LEONARDS supported the bill. The pro-
posed court would be open to rich and poor. But the very
evidence and necessities of a divorce case precluded the
cheapness of divorce. Did the Bishop of Exeter desire
a roving commission of divorce, travelling through
the country, and inviting people to be divorced ?
He denied that the House of Lords was open to the rich
and not to the poor. He appealed to the manner in
which divorce cases were conducted. He did not thick
throwing open the courts would lead to a greater num-
ber of applications for divorce. He was glad the bill
contained no clause impeding the marriage of adulterous
parties. It would have protected the mean and base-
minded in avoiding the only reparation in their power to
the women they bad injured, He hoped cam. con,

Lady Hercules
Admiral Lyons

Seven ran.

LATEST BETTING.
LIVERPOOL STEEPLECHASE.
11 to 2 agst Escape (taken)
9to 1 agst Hopeless Star (taken in force;
12 to 1 agst Teddesley (taken)

5e—.....--,—.---......................—........"
abolished by this bill, and that the : it one word, by a clerical error, was omitted,
actions would be li be by indictment andpenalty, "but ' the face of it, showed it
conrse of proceeding woos,
.i
, d be brought before 'he
The wife and the adulterer sho,: to be 60. With regarel to the secoed queation
resent the wife judge, and both should he heard. &It' he had to state that Web an estimate had been
had no place before the court, though the :Prelent affected
received and reached the i
loard of Control ou the 7th
her honour and the happiness of her ftiture lite. With
_February, and that it was te. ansraitted to the Treasury
regard to absence or desertion being a plea for es• on the Dtb. It had not yep been examined or acknow.
paration, he should oppose the clause, with tile I pro- i ledged, and it was net his intsnteoe to present the esti-
viso that the wife should be protected from the ' mate to the house, because it was.' rot desirab'e cr ex-
claims of the returning husband on the property pedient to do so in its present state, the e7timete being
she might have got together in his absence. The formed on rough calculataons. The calculations were
clause which allowed persons to separate by deed, and a formed on what he hoped would he blind to be an
W land an the e deal with her person as she would with an acre erroneous basis, namely, that the Persian War
of , would oppose. As regarded the Court of would I.st till December, 1857, b ut, even were it
Chancer
they, herse rusted that if the bill were
uread a second ' likely to he so proAucted, he should objsect to the product.
time, Ld Chancellor would strike overything , tion of the estimates, because there a were items and
that pertained to that court, which all Englishmen re- things mentioned ie it that ought not to bus made known
garded with a wholesome horror. Ito an enemy. He hoped, therefore, that the house
The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill, and would would no enforce its productioo. His aos wer to the
vote against it in a case of a division. Hitherto the law third question was, that no supplies or wapiti:nes of war,
had sought to surround marriage with a solemn protec- belonging to her Majesty, had been despatched from this
tion. This bill went to facilitate its dissolution. For- country or from any British possession, in aid of the ex.
merly divorce proceeded from sin—now it was to be from pedition against Persia.
sufferance. Now parties who had been separated were re- LAND TRANSPORT CORPS.
garded as holding a doubtful position—now they were Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Under Secretary for
invited to separate by a court, which affirmed their posi- War when the revised copy of the army regulations and
tion by its solemn sanction. There was now to be slaw to orders would be ready for distribution or sale ; also what
' unmarry innocently as before, to marry. He should vote was the date of the order or authority, and to whom it
that this law, which if passed would be onlya delusion, was sent and addressed, upon which the disbandment of
should be read that day three months. There were to be the Land Transport Corps took place, as stated by
proceedings in forma pauperis ! To what would this him on Friday last, and whether there was aiey objection
tend ? Actions for crim. con, were net abolished by this to lay upon the table a cosy of such order or authority I
act. It might be said that a clause to this effect would Mr. PEEL said that t w.zs intended to apply the new
be afterwards added, but the principle of the bill ought regulations to artillery and englneering corps, as swell as
to appear on the face of it. Then, too, what would foe the other portions of 4he service. The regulations ,were
reigners think of this law ?In Prussia, France, Austria, ready, except t'-at referring to the embarkation of troops.
and other countries, voluntary separation was prohibited. He expected they would' soon be ready. With regard
He contemned the opinion of ecclesiastical lawyers on to the Land Transport Corps, the right bon. gentleman
these points; they contemplated marriage, profession- gave a similar answer to that he gave ie extenso last;
ally, only as leading to adultery. The bill, in his opi- week.
nion, had a tendency to lower the sanctity of the mar- COURT OF EXCHEQUER (IRELAND).
riage obligation, and therefore he begged their lordships Mr. P. O'BRIEN naked tee Attorney General for
to vote against it.
Lord WENSLEYDALE supported the bill. He could
Ireland whether his attention bad been directed to the
present constitution of the Court; of Exchequer Chamber
not see why, if necessary, even the count courts should in Ireland,regarded the delays and difficulties expe-
as re, not grant divorces to the poorer classes. rienced by suitors in that court, and whether it was the
Lord DERBY said Lord Wensleydale's speech told intention of the Government to apply any remedy.
against the bill he intended to support. He had come Mr. FITZGERALD said that duriog the Easter re-
down to the house to vote for the second reading, case he intended to put himself into coennenieation with
but what had been said somewhat perplexed his mind the learned judeee of this court, and if they ae'opted his
protesting against the principle of the bill. He
In the first place he found the only two bishops present views, to introduce a bill for the purpose of aessmilating
anim- practice of
adverted on the non-attendance of the spiritual peers,
qthe
goer in this co this court to that of the Court of .Exche-
untry. •
whose advice and assistance were certainly due to the
house on a question fraught with such interest to the WEIGHTS AND MEA. SURES (IRELAND).
Church. On a recent political question 23 of the right Sir NVILLIAM VERNER asked the Cain Se.creterr
reverend prelates had managed to be present, yet this for Ireland if he could inform the heuee when the Bill
for -Cite Assimilation of Weights and Measures in Ire-
question, one that emphatically demanded their care,
laud was likely to be laid on tee table of the house ?
was to be argued in their absence. So much for the
I
Church. As regarded the Law, he found Lord Weneley-
Mr. HORS MAN said that the Government inteede
dale throwing his vote into one side and his argument to introduce a bill for the regulation of the Irish faire
g into another. He could not agree with the reverend and markets,
The of which weighty and measures would form
T. bill
a portion of that measure. e 1 had been prepared,
prelate, that marrriaee was indissoluble by law,
The Bishop of OXFORD denied having made any and was now under revision, and he hoped soon to be
such assertion, able to introduce it to the house.
The Bishop of EXETER said that his proposition SIR J. .111`NEIL AND COL. TULLOCH.
was that in certain cases a marriage could be dissolved the services of Sir .T
by law. M'Neil and Col. Tullech were again to be brought be-
The Earl of DERBY said that, such being the case fere the house, if the Under-Secretary fur War had any
(the bishops not assenting), the Legislature was bound objection to lay on the table of the
house a copy of the
to lay down explicitly what were the justifiable causes correspondence between the Government and these
and circumstances for divorce, and to refer them to the gentlemen relative to the offer of 1,0001. made to each
highest possible tribunal for judgment. He agreed, then, of those gentlemen ?
with the bill so far as it laid down that the marriage tie Mr. F. PEEL said there was no objection to produce
• should be dissolved on proved adultery, and provided a the correspondence referred to.
higher tribunal for the purpose. He wanted provision BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
made against crim. con. actions, and a penalty under On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, the notices
criminal prosecutions inflicted on the adulterer. He of motions were postponed tilt after the order. f the day
would have the bill made equally to apply to rich and for resuming the adjourned debate on China.
poor. We were very severe, and justly so, in punish-
ing crimes of violence and robbery. Let their lordships CHINA.— ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The adjournsd debate on this question was resumed.
beware lest the people sheuld say that they shrunk from Th
severely punishing crimes they were themselves exposed Mr. ROUNDELL PAL ME R, addressed the
to the temptation of committing. Looking to the intro- house at considerable length ou the legal and tech-
duction of these clauses, he should vote for the second nical portion of the question, in the course of
reading of the bill.
which he replied to the reasoning of the
Earl GREY would vote against the bill, not because learned Attorney -General and said that unless the Go-
he did not think the, present system disgraceful, but - '
because the bill did not remedy it sufficiently. The law vernment could show that this lorcha was an English
was to be equal to the poor as to the rich, and yet they merchant ship their case failed entirely, for • without
began with a tribunal consisting of a Lord Chancel:or, a that no ship in China was under the protection of this
Dean of Arches, and three Chief Justices ! Could such country. (Hear, hear.) They must also prove that
a court deal with the cases of poor people ? What fees,
of 1842.
b
badthereeen a direct violation of the Treaty
and forms, and processes did these names shadow forth ?- What a machinery was this to hold out to the poor ! He contended there was nothing connected with this
The experiment would be useless—the system would not lorcha or her crew that gave aclaim to British nationality.
hold.
The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to the
Lord REDESDALE deprecated all motions on the general argaments that had been relied on by the sup-
many an English hearth. subject. The bill would bring desolation and misery to
porters of the Government, and concluded by stating
The LORD CHANCELLOR replied. He trusted that he should support the resolution of the hon. member
that actions for crim. con, being no longer necessary as for the West Riding.
preliminary processes to divorce, would of themselves Col. HERBERT supported the resolution.
cease. If the adulterer were tried for misdemeanour, Mr. KENDALL could not follow his party in voting
were they to try the woman also ? What was the far thisresolution,he thought nothing could be more
as
punishment to be ? A fine would be disregarded by
those who could pay—and in the case of those who unjust, ungenerous, and dangerous than hastily to con-
could not—the punishment would raise up an inequality demn public servants at a distance. He did not say he
between rich and poor. As to the Bishop of Oxford's approved of everything Sir John Bowring had said
proviso, it went to take away a great punishment on the or done ; but where there was matter of dsubt. he
man, he being morally compelled to marry the woman, thought our own servants ought to be supported, other-
and so become banished from society. He hoped for a
second reading of the bill that it might be considered wise he was sure no Englishman's life in China would be
and improved, and an end be thereby put to the anoma- safe for a moment. He objected to the resolution on'
sous state of the law as at present existing, other grounds. A man must be blind indeed if he did
The House divided—
not see that this lorcha question was made a mere die.
Contents
Non-contents
Majority .
—l5 Government were removed, their s ccessors must be
The bill was read a second time, and the house, after composed, among others, of Lord T. Russell, Sir James
passing the Chief Constables Bill and the Public Health Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. S. Herbert. Now, he
Bill through committee, and a resolution that no private would not say anything against those parties except this
bill should be read a second time after the 3d of Jul —that he could not forget who brought us into the last
adjourned at ten o'clock. 37, war, and who mismanaged it for us when they brought
us ieto it. Nor could be forget either that the noble
lord at the head of the Government brought us out of
the difficulty, and that in spite of a pressure which
few but himself could have resisted. Turning to his
own side of the house, be scolded them for cheer-
ing Mr. Cobden, and still more for cheering Sir
James Graham when be boasted of having spared
Odesa—the very thing which the Conservatives blamed
him fur at the time.
,There was another matter. He
' feared that the Peelites were working heaven and earth
to thrust the Church into extremes. For his part, he
would rather sacrifice his Conservative principles than
see those men in power.
' Mr. M. GIBSON could not understand how the car-
rying of Mr. Cobden's resolution would endanger Bri-
' tish life in China. Did the Government mean to say
that if they were beaten they would at once withdraw
- the protection to life and property they had hitherto af-
forded. It was said, too, that the merchants connected
I with the China trade were all opposed to the resole-
'ion. But he could not Sod that the merchants of
England generally opposea the resolution—certainly
the merchants of Manchester did not—and as for those
.in the tea trade, he hinted that a desire to dispose
F of their stacks of Chinese produce at high prices
might be at the bottom of their eagerness for hos-
ttlities. Then it was said that the Liberals ought
net to vote for the motion because the Conservatives
supported it. Bet the noble lord ha I no such scruples
in accepting Conservative support to put down liberal
resolutions ; and the fact that the Conseria ives, wha
were usually in favour of the Cro en on all questions of
war, were in favour of this reFolutio,:, w is a s rang pro f
that the resolution itself was right. H., c mpla.reed of the
wrong and disagreeable pressure that was put upri the
Liberal membere to chaug, their votes ott this question,
and vote for the Giver ment. Teey were begged anti entreated, as if they were electors in some s nail provin-
cial town before a contested election.
Mr. OSBORNE complained of the manner in which
this question bad been mystified and obfuscated
by lawyers until plain men so far lost sight r f the
real question that one took refege
in the characterof
of Lord Raglan, and another in
Lord Pslm erston's
episcopal appointments. He agreed in all that had.
been said in praise of Sir Michael Seymour, but he
reminded the House that Admiral Seymour was jointly
responsible with Sir John Bowring f a all that bad been
done. He denied that Canton has been bombarded ; all
that was done was to shell a particular part of the city
where the Chinese were assembling to burn down the
factories. It was impossible to discuss the question
from an English or European point of view. Wuat was
the use of discussing this pedantry of international law
with respect to a nation who neither regarded European
law nor justice? He was surprised that Mr. Cobden
shou d have made a violent attack on the character ct
the British merchants. It hardly became the hon. mem-
ber to do so after having received from the body of
British merchants the most magnificent testimonial that
had ever been gives to a member of Parliament. He
defended the character and acts of Sir Jiihn Bowring, at
the same time that he knew well the real object of attack
was not Sir John Bowring, but the Minister
carried them through the war at a time when 6erwho
had
ties forsook their posts—the Minister wh Other par-
a friend, and never had a personal enemy,
o never forsook
eta
from the noble lord, especially on thenly. ile differed
form, and he only abstained from ate question of re-
voting
cause he had not given Wel warning,against him be-
-1
house was determined to if, however, the
he would ask in whose lorcha
the noble lord's lorcha,
supposed in one whose f •la were they to be put ? lie
den, and whose foreign commodore was Mr. Cob-
He believed the registeredcoalition
owner was Russell and Co-
alai° be popular, and ti about to be firmed would not .
r, he was sure
rate a con•ipiracY to upset the noble lord.
Mr. HEN LEY entertained übts of the lega-
lity of the • strong uo
register, but he had eo doubt et all trust if it
were legal the reparation demanded for the wrong was
excessive. He corit.ra•sted the conduct of the Americans
for the insult offered to their flag with the ferocity eis-
played by our own countrymen. The friends of Sir John
Bo wring were indignant that such hard names had been
applied to him, but it was remarkable that no oue of
them attempted to disprove the charges. It appeared to
him that Sir J. Bowring had been guilty, of deliberate
• stice to Admiral Seymour lie
falsehood ; and, in in
the face of these papers, the sha-
eay there was not, on
tion that when he coneurr d •
dory of an imputation
he e in the
was
ishmtut of Canton . aware 0 the shameful de-
ceptionpan
e• h had been practised upon the Chinese. The
were
barbarities
condemned ,
theno
wonder
of the Chinese had been dilated upon, and
d • but let not the house forget who began
We had bombarded the town ; bow could we
that the Chinese resorted to ihe etily retaliation
in their power and mei the knife and the poison of the
a.sassin ? He was for supporting our servants abroad, tint
that support must have a limit, and he could not support
them when they were guilty of wilful deception and
slaughtering innoceet eon-combatant ,14.
Sir E. C. EGERTON could not support the resolu-
tion, because lie believed Oa' its atlirmat)on by this
House would endanger the whole of tiie British inte-
rests and British life now in China. But he hoped Lord
Palnierdtou would recall Sit J. Boning, aud send out a

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER,.
Lord J. MANNERS took the oaths and his seat for
Leicestershire.

CRYSTAL PALACE RAILWAY BILL.
The committee reported that the standing orders had
not been complied with in respect to this bill.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The following private bills were read a second time
and ordered to be committed :—Deeside Extension Rail-
way ; Manchester Corporation ; Mid-Sus-+e= Railway ;
Richmond and Kew Extension Railway ; Rhyuthey
Railway.

INCOME TAX.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented 21 petitions praying for
the abolition of the income tax on incomes of 1501. and
under.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was brought in and read a first time.
RAILWAYS (INDIA).
On the motion of Mr. HADFIELD, on behalf of
Mr. Cheetham, the following returns were ordered :
Returns showing the whole outlay sanctioned by the
East India Company for the purposes of railways in
India, independently of the cost of land ; specifying the
amount for each several railway, and the rates of interest
at which the different sums have been guaranteed ;
showing the whole amount which has been paid
into the East India Company's treasury on account
of Indian railways, and the whole amount which
has been paid out of the Eastlndia Company's treasury
on account of Indian railways, down to the latest period
for which accounts have been received in England ; show-
ing the direction of lines of railway sanctioned in India,
sketched on a skeleton map of that country, marking
the principal stations, with their distance from the
principal terminus on eaeh of the said lines ; dis-
tinguishing the portions of the said lines completed
or to be completed within a given time, or
already open for traffic, from those portions not yet com-
pleted or commenced upon ; and specifying the number
of miles of railway open for traffic in each presidency,
with the date at which the construction of each several
Indian railway was begun. so far as the above particu-
lars are already known in England. And, showing the
number of miles of new roads or navigable canals opened
for traffic in each several presidency of India since the
year 1843, and the total amount of money expended on
their construction ; specifying the localities of the above
lines of communication, and, distinguishing the number
of miles, and the direction of such of the said new roads
as are continuously stoned and bridged and of the first
class throughout, and the number of miles and direction
of ruch of the said canals as are available for steam
navigation

E MIGRATION.
On the motion of Viscouut GODERICII, the follow-
ing returns were ordered :—Returns showing the amount
of money at the disposal of the Emigration Commission-
ers, for emigration to the Australian Colonies, in each of
the last ten years, the amount expended, and the num-
ber of emigrants sent out in each year ; and the average
cost per statute adult ; of the number of applications for '
passages now in the Commission-office, the amount of
unappropriated balance in their bands, and the probable
number of statute adults for whom that balance will pro-
vide; of the number of persons connected with the building
trades sent out during the last six months, and the pro-
portion whieh they bear to other emigrants during the
same period ; and, of the regulations and conditions
under which passages are granted.

DESTITUTION AT COLCHESTER.
Sir J. TYRRELL inquired if there would be any
objection to ills moving for the production of General
Gascoigne's report, relative to the destitution of the
soldiers' wives and families at Colchester ?
Mr. F. PEEL—No.

EDUCATION.
Mr. W. EWART gave notice that be should, on an
early day, move to bring in a bill making it compul-ory
for children under a certain age employed in factories to
be allowed a certain number of hours etch day for edu
cation.

PERSIA.
Mr. GLADSTONE asked the President of the Board
of Control whether " the financial year," in his letter of
the 9th day of December last, had the same meaning as
"the ensuing financial year," in Charles Trevelyan's
letter of the 2d day of December last ; and if not, by
whose authority the change was made ? Whether any
estimate of the charge of the Persian war for the ensu-
ing financial year had been presented by the East India
Company to her Majesty's Government ; and, if so,
at what date it was thus presented, and when it
would be laid on the table of this house:
and whether any supplies or munitions of war the pro-
perty perty of her Majesty, have been despatched frinn the
in aid of 1
country, or from any British possession,
expedition against Persia ?
to was
Mr. V. SMITH said that with regard to
iquestion the financial year in the referredletter.an,o,..,3,
_vs. .
exactly the Bann as that of Sir 0, TrevelY P c
the first 1