The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-29 00:00:00

LONDOiN, FitiDAY EVENING, MAY 1857.

kBEAT-WESTERN RAILWAY.-NOTICE.
On MONDAY,. June Ist, the Branch Line between TWY-
FORD and HENLEY will he Opened for Public Traffic.—For par-
ticulars of Trains, &c., see the Company's time bills.

N,/rANCHESTER ART TREASURES EY-
-1 HIIiITION. GREAT WESTERN RAlLwxY.—no
trat-s by this line convey passengers to and from Chester Regular
trains are appointed to run direct between that station and the Art
Treasures Exhibition.

GREA T WESTERN RAILWAY.=
EXCURSION to B TII and BRIBTOL.—On Saturday„
May 30th, irom Paddington at 6.30 p m., returning on Tuesday
June 2d from Bristol at 8.15 a.m., and Bath at 8.43 a.m. Fares :
Bristol, 10s. and 68. ; Bath, 9s. and

GREA T WESTERN RAILWAY
Excursion to Weymouth, Dorchester, Yeovil, Fronde, and
Trowbridge.—On Saturday, May 30th, a Train will leave Paddibgton
at 2.30 p.m., returning on Tues lay, June 2d, from Weymouth at
10.30 a.m., and intermediate stations as per band bills.
Fares :—Trowbridge,-9s and 5s ; Frome and Yeovil, 10s. and 65.;
Do cheater and Weymouth, 12s. and Bs.

RELT WESTERN' RAILWAY.
'kir Excursion to Cirencester, Stroud, Gloucester, Cheltenham,
Ross, and itereford, on Sunday, May 31, at 7.30 a.m., from Pad-
dington, returning th. same night from Hereford at 6 p .m. ; Ross,
6.25 ; Cheltenham 6'30 .Gloucester, 7 0 ; Stroud, 7.30 ; and Ciren-
cester at 7.40 Fares : —Cirencester and Stroud, 9s. and ss. ; Glou-
cester ar.d Cheltenham, 10s. and fis.; Ross, 10s. and 6s. 6d. ; He-
reford, lis and 7s. Passengers with Hereford Tickets may return,
if preferred, on Tuesday, the 2d of June, at 4.45 p m., thus giving au
opportunity of visiting the Crumlin Viaduct.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
ALTERATION OF TRAINS for JUNE.

DOWN TRAINS

The 2.45 p.m. Train from Paddington will be discontinued from
Swindon to Cheltenham. •
A Train for Windsor, and intermediate stations, will leave Pad-
dington at 3.30 p.m.
The Train from Paddington at 6.15 p in. will be discontinued be-
yond Sl-wh.'
The Train from Paddington at 5. 5 p m. will be accelerated, ar-
riving at Birmingham live at/ratter" earlier thaw t preempt,
the 5.30 p.m. Trend from Paddington will be continued on from
Swindon to Cheltenham.

ing themselves to observe the laws of the Church, they
were called upon to obey a different law, which said that
the marriage tie was not indissoluble. If the law decl'ired
that the marriage tie could be dissolved for incompatibi-
lity of temper, the clergy, he supposed, would in like
manner be obliged to celebrate the marriage of the di-
vorced persons. This he thought a great hardship on the
clergy..

Lord CAMPBELL said be should be glad to support
any clause which would satisfy the conscience of every
member of the clergy, but it would be a most alarming
principle to pass a law of the land which all persons were
not bound to obey. See what resulted from these con-
scientious scruples. It was from conscientious scruples
that the objections to church rates and. tithes arose.
What ground was there for this clause ? There was no
canon law, as far as be was aware, which declared mar-
riage to be indissoluble. Those who concurred in the
Re'ormatio Legum were not aware of any such canon,
and none had been pased since, that he was aware of, to
that effect. But even if there were, no canon was to be
set up against the law of the land, and it would not be
binding if the law of the land was against it. It would,
be most mischievous and a very bad example it some of
the clergy were to set themselves above the law.
After a few words from the Bishops of Bangor, Lon-
don, and Oxford,
Their lordships then divided—

For the Bishop of Oxford's clause
Against 73-52
THE ACTION FOR CRIM. CON.
On clause 44,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he proposed this
clause in its present form on account of the general feel-
ing that the law ought to be altered. He thought the
law of Scotland was the best on this subject. The action
for crim. con had been objected to on various grounds.
It was said that a divorce ought not to depend on whe-
ther a husband had obtained diet in such an action,
thuiiiMPOsing on him :th-elae'eeeeit rery of bringing such an
action. Another objection was, though he did not at-
tach much weight to it, that investigations of this kind
led to a great deal of scandalous detail ; but this
arose rather from the nature of the subject itself. Such
an objectirlf would squally apply to actions for seduc-
tion and for criminal violence. A third objection, which
was much pressed by Lord Brougham, was, that the cha-
racter r f the lade might be irretrievably damaged in as
action of this kind, without her having a chance of being
heard. The clause as now drawn obviated that objec-
tion entirely. No such action could be brought till the
husband had obtained a sentence of divorce. Still, it
might be said, why retain the action at all It would
be an anomaly in the law, if for a gross grievance no re-
msely were provided. Not only on the sole ground of
solatium, as it was called, might damages be awarded,
but also as a means, of paying the costs of a divorce.
Again, the apprehension of large damages might very
probably restrain parties Irons the commission of this
crime. If the action for crim. con. seas taken away,
what substitute was provided ? One prOposatiwas to fine
the adulterer in fact,soo/., and make the crime a misde-
meanour.
Lord ST. LEONARD i restated the substance of his
proposal. The fine would go to the Crown, with power
to apply part of it to the costs of the divorce.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that might alter
the name of the trial, but the very same trial must take
place. If the offence were made a misdemeanour, the
husband ought riot to have the option to prosecute or
condone as he thought proper ; the prosecution ought
to be at the instance of the public. It was said that this
kind of action was at variance with the public feeling ;
but how could this be so when juries almost invariably
gave very heavy damages. Under these circumstances,
be thought it better to retain the right of action for crim.
con., but not to make it a condition precedent to obtain-
ing a divorce.
Lord LYNDHIJRST said he would not again enter
into the question generally, having so recently dons so at
great length. He would confine htmeelt to the alteration
now proposed. As the lew now stood, a divorce could
not be obtained till aft4r judgment obtained against the
adulterer. Now, it was proposed to reverse the order of
proceeding, but the noble and learned lord had given no
answer to what he stated the other night. The law
ought to be applicable to all classes of the community ;
but as only (sire portion of the community could ever pro-
ceed for divorce—Roman Catholics, for instance,. being
excluded—those persons would also be debarred from
bringing an action. Again, it would operate injuriously
towards poor men, wh• act wives might have been seduced,
and who would have to go through a dduble proceeding
in order to obtain damages from the adulterer. He
doubted whether the alteration proposed would diminish
these actions, for when persons obtained judgment of
divorce they would only have to go into a court of law
'and ask for a verdict. He therefore proposed to strike
out from the clause certain words, the effect of which
would be to take away the action for crim. con. (Hear.)
The Bishop of OXFORD did not think the _house
would consent to do away with the right of action for
criminal conversation, unless something of a penal cha-
racter were substituted. To do this would, especially
among the lower classes, increase the temptation to

Crime.
Lord LYNDHURST said he had not entered into
that point because Lord St. Leonards had an amendment
on the paper which went to that question.
Too Bishop of OXFORD was di,posed to support the
principle of Lord Sc. Leonards' amendment, but thought
that a higher penalty ought to be inflicted on the adul-
terer, with power to make compensation to the husband.
He should be glad to =ee something done to make adul-
tery discreditable, instead of the adulterer being invested
with a sort of mythical chivalry, as at present. (Hear.)
He would subject him to imprisonment, or some dis-
creditable punishment.
Lord WENSLEYDALE opposed the amendment.
The house ought not to take away the husband's right
to a civil remedy, although they might reader adultery
a penal offence. It had been said that the Lord Chief
Justice of the Queen's Bench was not only opposed to
this action, but had actually stigmatised it in open court
as a disgrace to the law of this country. He could not
believe that this was correct. It was also an error to
say that this was the only country in which such a
right of action prevailed. The action for cram con.
was not exactly a condition precedent for obtaining a
divorce, but iu the Duke of Norlolic's case, about the be-
ginning of the century, the action had been required to
be brought to satisfy the house that there was no collu-
sion ; and the rues had been generally acted on since.
The law of France and other countries recognised the
right of an injured husband to maintain an action against
the adulterer ; and by the Reman law fines were imposed
on parties so offending. He saw no ground fir taking
away the right of the husband to recover compensation
for being deprived of the comfort, society, and assistance
of his wife ; and what compensation could the law give
other than a pecuniary compensation ! Two or three ar-
guments had been adduced against the action. It was
said that a man ought not to he allowed to make mer-
chandise of his wife's dishonour; but analogous argu-
ments might be employed against the action far slander
or libel. It was said that these actions led to very dis-
agreeable details, but this objection also arose in other
kinds of actions. The hardship upon the woman because
she was not heard in such an action might easily be kept,
because she could give assistance in defending the action.
Lord LYNDHURST said his noble and learned friend
had entirely misapprehended the view he took of the
question now before the committee. He (Lord Lynd-
hurst) wished to get rid of the action for criminal conver-
sation, but only in order to substitute some equivalent
for it. It would be a great misfortune to discuss the
subject piecemeal.
The Earl of DERBY remindtid the committee that if
they agreed to his learned friend's amendment they
would by no means be committed to the abolition of the
action for criminal conversation. When they had dis-
cussed his noble friend'e substitute for that action, it
would still be open to their lordships to express their
opinion on what the Lord Chief. Justice would call the
ensemble of the clause. (Hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL said the speech of his noble friend
(Lord Wensleydale) had proceeded on the supposition
that what was proposed was the simple abolition of the
action fer criminal conversation ; whereas that was a
prop isition which not one of their lordships thought of
recommending. (Hear, hear.) He knew that his noble
friend had a great abhorence for any alteration in the
law ; but in those cases in which the law had been
changed, and in which the changes had been fonnd
beneficial, his noble friend had candidly confessed his
former opinion concerning them had been erroneous.
The noble lord seemed to be as much shocked at the
prospect of abolishing the action for criminal conversa-
tion as if it were proposed totake away the writ of habeas
corpus ; he seemed, in fact, to think that the mainten-
ance of our liberties was bound up with the right of a
husband to put money into his pocket by his own dis-
honour. (Laughter) The noble lord had referred to a
statement, respecting what he (Lord Campbell) had said
in the Court of Queen's Beech. That, statement was
perfectly true. In open court, upon his own tribunal,
In his noble friend's presence, he should not be deterred
from expressing sentiments .he had long maintained.
The action for criminal conversation was contrary to the
very first principles of jurisprudence, which only gave a
right of civil action where pecuniary damages could afford
a compensation for the wrong done. Thus, it a horse
were taken away from a man, and he receive a verdict
for 100/. or 2001., he might buy himself as good a horse
with the money as he had lost ; but how could a person
whose wife bad been seduced be compensated by any
amount of pecuniary damages! Adultery was a crime
of a very deep die, and he considered that it ought to
be a subject for punishment, and not for pecuniary com-
pensation. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said that the
action for criminal conversation we, not unknown on the
continent ; but he (Lord Campbell) had conversed with
French, Italian, and German jurists, and the only view
which prevailed amongst them was, that we ought to be
ashamed that such an
.action could be brought in our
courts. (Hear.) On one occasion he was taunted with
a statement that a man in England could take his wife
into a public market with a rope'round her neck and sell
her. He (L rd Campbell) pledged bis honour that so far
from that being the ca-c, a man who did such a thing
could be punished fr a Inisdemeanour. " Ah, but what
have you to say about the action for criminal converse-
tioe !" was the immediate rejoinder. He (Lord Camp-
bell) had nothing to say—he could only blush. (Laughter.)
Lord WENSLEYDALE said he had taken part in
all the great legal changes of modern times In the

portant alterations which had been effected in 1828, ann
I in the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854
Ihe had a large share—so that there never was a charge
more entirely inaccurate than that which his noble friend
had brought against him. With regard to what his
friend had said in the Court of Queen's Bench on the
subject of the motion for criminal conversation, he (Lord
Wensleydale) had wished it might piove untrue. He
regretted to find, however, that his noble friend should
have thought proper in his court, where no one could
answer him, to make perfectly irrelevant statements
upon the state of the law. Where would the noble lord
find a single precedent amongst his illustrious predeces-
sors of a judge thro wing dirt upon the law he sat to ad-
minsterl (Hear)
Lord CAMPBELL, on theocca.ion in question did not
blame the plaintiff. OU the contrary, he said the plain-
tiff did perfectly right, seeing that he could not other-
wise have obtained a divorce It, vincula.
Earl GRANVILLE suggested that the clause should
be struck out, and that the amendment should be intro-
duced at the bringing up of the report.
A long conversation ensued upon this point ; but
eventually it was suggested by
The Earl of DERBY, that the words proposed to be
left out should be omitted, and that the first words of
the amendment should be agreed to—in other words,
that the clause should be worded so as to abolish the
action for criminal conversation, and that adultery with
a married woman should be constituted a misdemeanour.
(Hear, hear.)
This was agreed to, and the ()Italie, as amended, *as
then passed—the debate, upon its details, being post-
poned to another stage.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and, the
house having resumed, the bill was reported as amended.
Lord REDESDALE, adverting to the clause of Lord
St. Leorards, providing a substitute for the action for
criminal conversation, suggested to the Lord Chancellor
that that clause should he discu4sed-when-tire—bill was
recommitted, as that would afford the best chance of its
being duly considered.
On the motion of the Earl of HARBOWBY,
Their lordships adjourned, at ten minutes to nine, till
Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the Chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

'The following private bills were further considered
and ordered to be read a third time :-/-Atlantic Tele-
graph Company, and Australian Agricultural Company
Bills.
The SPEAKER announced that the standing orders
bad not been complied with in reference to the London
Gas Bill.

PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented in favour of an equalisation
of the poor's rate, the ballot, the bill for the better regu•
lation of the sale of beer, tenant-right bill, and against
the Superannuation Act ; in favour of Mr.lleadiam's
medical bill, the abolition of ministers' mosey, removal
of Jewish disabilities, &c.
NEW WRITS.

On the motion of Mr. HAYTER a new writ was
ordered for the county of Kerry, in the place of Mr.
H. A. Herbert, appointed Chief Secretary far Ireland,
and also for the borough of R.adicg, in the place of
Mr. H. S. Keating, appointed her Majesty's Solicitor-
General.