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

TILE SUN, LoNzov

PIPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORi)S—(YEsTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

TRADE IN OPIUM.
The LORD CHANCELLOR leid on the table the
(si- ion of the law officers of the Crown, with respect to
tee 1 igality of the manufacture and sale of opium.
NEWS FROM INDIA.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGHsaidseeing thenobie
lord, the Secretary of War, in his place, he begged to
a-k him whether any further telegraphic intelligencehad
been received from India.
Lord PANMURE said nothing further than the de-
ep tch which had appeared in the newspapers had been
received.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH hoped ho would be
allowed to suggest that it would bo exceedingly conve-
nieiit if the Government of Calcutta, Madras, and
Ilerobay would endeavour to enlist the service
some gentlemen who would be competent
put upon paper short facts in an intelligible form.
If such a course was adopted such ambiguity would be
avoided as appeared in the last telegraphic dispatch.
Nothing was more unsatisfactory than the terms of the
despatch last received. He wished now to call the atten-
tion of the noble lord the Secretary at War to a subject
tneetioned a few days ago on the subject of the number
of militia the Governmentproposed to embody. He under-
stood the noble lord to say that the Government had
taken a vets for 200,0001. for that purpose, and that this
iite was:to be applied to the embodiment of 10,000 men.
lie begged to remind the noble lord that 30 battalions had
aocv been transferred to the service of the East India
Company. The expenses and pay of that force would
amount for six months to 410,0001. There were like-
vise four additional regiments of cavalry transferred to
the charge of the East India Company, whose pay
for the same period would be 29,0001. There were
tiler 2,000 or 3,000 whose expense for a like
time would be 32,0001., there were likewise some sappers
and miners to be sent out whose pay might be set down
at 8,0001. Tuerefore, including the 450,0001., the
re,•venues of the country would be charged to
a leas amount than usual by iabout 559,0001.
He calculated that the cost of the militia
proposed to be embodied would not amount to more than
no,ooot , leaving a sum of 259,0001. surplus. He hoped
the Government would see the propriety of employing
the whole of the feu-plus in the embodiment of a mili-
tia force beyond the number of 10,000 as proposed.
Lord PANMURE said the whole of the balance al-
luded to would be applied to the establishment of such a
force as would meet the exigencies of the case. The
noLle earl should recollect that, independently of the
permanent charge of the militia, there were no less
than 550 recruiting parties for the line dispersed through-
out the country. During the last three weeks no less
than 16,000 re.cruits had been received.
Earl POWIS :aid it would be very convenient if the
noble lord would ?pacify the regiments of militia he
proposed to be embodied.
Lord PANMURE said as soon as the order in coun-
cil, which was a necessary preliminary step was issued,
every information on the subject would be given,
The subject then dropped.
THE DIVORCE BILL.

Lord REDESDA.LE called the attention of their
for Ishipe to what took place on Friday, relative to what
t)ck place on the subject of the consideration of the
Commons amendments to this bill. Having explained
his conduct on the occasion, with a view of showing
that his motion to postpone the consideration of the
Cernmone' amendments for six months was perfectly regu-
lar, and founded upon precedent, he complained of the
language used toward him by the noble and learned lord
no the Woolsack, as well as the noble earl the Lord
President of the Council. His course of proceeding was
termed a trick, although he had given notice of his motion,
nod although he had sufficient support on that occasion
to defeat the bill altogether, he yes 'consented, in defer-
s:l:co to the appeals made to him, to withdraw
hi; motion. He hoped that under the circumstance some
ap logy would be rendered him for the unjustifiable len-
gu -ose with which ho had been assailed.
EARL GRANVILLE said he believed he was the
last person to address their lordships on the motion of
the noble lord, and if be remembered accurately, what
he he Lad said was, that from his knowledge of the cha•
racter of the noble lord he was quite ready to believe his
assertion that he had not intended a surprise. On his
oen part and on that of his colleagues, he had stated in
the most explicit manner that they believed entirely
what fell from the noble lord, and even wont so far as to
thank him for the handsome manner in which he had
withdraan his motion. It was quite true, as the noble
lord now said, that in strict regnlar:ty no previous notice
of au amendment was required, and in that way the Go-
vernment might, the moment the Commons' amendments
came up to that house, have moved at once that they be
agreed to. But the overnment were anxious that the
house should have some little time to consider the
aelendments, and with that view put off the considera-
tion for three days. His noble and learned friend on the
woolsack was going to give notice for Monday, when, to
their infinite surprise—it might be a foolish surprise, but
it was felt by the independent as well as the Government
members on that side of the house—they were told that
Lord Redesdale was about to move that the amendments
should be considered that day three months. He (Lord
Granville) replied that it was impossible, but on asking
the noble lord as to his intentions, the latter replied that
the rumour was correct. At that time there were hardly
any peers in attendance on the Ministerial side of the
house, while, by a singular coincidence— of course purely
accidental—there was a large attendance of the opposi-
tion. (Hear.) In that way, whatever might have been
the noble lord's intentions, the effect was a complete
surprise, and the ocly course left for the Government
was not to take any step at all with respect to the bill.
Now, supposing the noble lord to have succeeded in
n(l.:,,ativing the motion for adjournment, he was at a 1038
to know whether the noble lord would have taken the
bill out of the hands of his noble and learned friend on
the woolsack, and moved at once that It should be con-
sidered that day three months, As he had said he-
fare, he hail not the slightest hesitation in expressing Lis
bm lief in the truth of what the noble lord said, but at the
Fallle time ho must positively declare that his notice bad
quite the effect of a surprise. There was something very
indefinite in the word "when," but hearing such a notice
cesual;y eiven' he should at once have concluded that it
meant the ordinary time when the amendments were
brought under the consideration of the house by the Go- I
vernment.

Lord ST. LEONARDS said that the only omission in
the noble earl's speech was the absence of any expression
cf regret for words that might have been used in the heat
of debate.

The Duke ef ARGYLL observed that if the noble lord
had persisted in his motion the effect would have been a
complete fsurprise.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said his noble and learned
f i'snd (Lord St. Leopards) wished for some expression of
ejet for any words that might have been personally
4 ffensive, but he (the Lord Chancellor) contended that
none such had been wed. He was perfectly satisfied on
_Friday evening that his noble friend did not intend any
tick, but what he said was, that if the whole question
cre " Lurked" by the noble lord's motion, the feeling
cut of doors would bethat a track bad been played. I'no
noble lord had cited two precedents, but let him ask the
Loblo lord whether the notices were made by the promo-
ters of the bill or the opponents, because that made all
the difference. He must say that he (the Lord Chan-
cellor) took the motion when he first heard it in the
sense deficribed by his noble friend.
Lord REDESDALE explained that he was bound by
time to make his motion when he did, and still thought
that nothing in his proceeding had justified the tone in
which be was addressed.
Lord CAMPBELL said that previous to the noble
lard, making his motion he was solemnly warned that the
unienduients could not be consiiered until Monday, but
sti 1 he persisted.

Lord REDESDALE—I never mad© the motion.
Lord CAMPBELL—True, the motion was not made
technically, but still he (Lcrd Campbell) must say that
the noble lord had surprised him much by his persist-
ence. He could only say that if the noble lord had suc-
ceeded it wonli have been equivalent to what was known
at law as snapping a judgment-.
The Marquis of BATH certainly must say that the
language used on the other side was such as he had never
heard in that house before.

Vi,:count DUNGANNON bad never seen such n scene
in their lordships' house as that which occurred the other
night ; the conduct of noble lords on the other side was
rather worthy of 'another placa "—(laughter)—than of
that houte.

The subject then dropped.
The Commons' Amendments to theßurial Acts Amend-
meet Bill were considered and agreed to.
The Commons' Amendments to the Militia Bill. were
toesidered and agreed to.
The Commons' Amendments to the Sale of Obscene
n_neks Prevention Bill were considered and agree I to.
-I)IVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CLAUSES
BILL.
the LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the Ceta-
"
ni_Lord i:S-rnendraents be considered.
ItEDESDALE moved that the Commons'
taken into consideration that day six
months,
induced to take this course upon three
grounda—Pirst,bs
reason of the character and ineper`.
na
ance of the Coraeo
alterations, which were of
ought such magnitude that they ht not to be hurriedly
(I cussed or hastily decided
upon.oeta.reldn
dtuhriengntelixet
place be considered that what had
1:1b119b e
present session showed the advareaee
would ac-
crue trim a further consideration of the
the thitd place, he thought that the bill patentii ;hvant.da, in
matters which were within the scope of its object tba
therefore it was imperfect, and as an imperfect measure
i'.'ought not to be further proceeded with. In conAider-
il ig the first Lranch of the q lestion, he would at once
a !mit that seine of the amendments made in the ether
house wet° decided improvements upon the bill as it
left that house ; other amendments, again, were of little
moment either one way or another, whilst others were
wave in their character, and objectionable in their effect.
Tee first alteration in the measure wh;ch fell within t.
i
feat categoey was that which had reference to a local
jurisdiction in ca,,es of judicial separation. The clause,
7"ntsneled, gave this jurisdiction to the judges of as-
), and to the chairmen of court z of quarter selion.
Emil as regarded the judges of ass:ze, there were reascne
yr,ndering that coutee not entirely free from objection,
but as regarded the court of quarter sessions the previ-
a:ens o: the 1)11 were most objectionable. There were
no rules existing by which the practice before such is
tribunal as "the chairman of quarter sessions" could be
regulated ; there was no bar accustomed to the conside-
ration of the peculiar cases which, upon such questions,

would arise, and, in truth, the objections to such a
clause were manifold and weighty. The house would
not so multi wonder at this when they consider ed that
this clause was not the result of care and consid oration,
but was introduced—he thought he might say se mewhat
hastily—in order to meet an abstract resolution of the
House of Commons that soma local jurisdictions should
be given. For his own part be certainly thought that
the object of that resolution would be better gained by
the appointment of another judge of the matrimonial
court who might than take circuits throughout the coun-
try. Passing by some minor alterations in the bill, with
respect to which he did not offer any argument to the
house, the next amendment to which it was necessary to
call their lordships' attention was that which extended toe
grounds upon which the wife should have divorce. He
regretted to say that he thought that all of these altera-
tions were injudicjous. The first of these amendments.
gave the wife a right to divorce upon the happening of
adultery on the husband's part, committed within the
conjugal residence. The meaning of this amendment was
no doubt to provide againet the case of a man introducing
a mistress into hie house and insulting the wife with her
presence. Batas it had been pointed out when the bill was
in that house, such a case was met by the words giving di-
vorce upon adultery with cruelty ; for there was nothing
to limit that word to mere animal violence. The effect of
this amendment would, however, be to place a most ob-
jectionable power of obtaining divorce in the wife's hands
—one which she might be led to avail herself of in a mo-
ment of passion and under circumstances which would
give her cause for great regret when it was too late. The
next amendment gave the wife the ritiht to divorce in the
case of adultery coupled with rape. Now, it seemed to
him that rape was not an offence against the wife, but
against the woman ravished, and hence he did not con-
eider that there was any reason for giving the right of
divorce on the ground that rape was added to adultery.
The next amendment introduced the words "sodomy
and bestiality." He much regretted the introduction of
these words; they introduced an entirely new series of
ideas into the bill; they related to offences that could be
seldom proved, and on grounds of public morality he ob-
jected to the alteration. There was then an amendment
enabling the court to bring the paramour before it as a
respondent. Of the effect of this he would not pretend to
judge, but leave it to those whose judicial functions ena-
bled them more clearly to form an estimate of its advan-
tage or disadvantage. The next amendment was of con•
siderable importance, and in introducing it to their notice
he would remind them that throughout the former die-
cu ision of this question one of the great objects held out
to their lordship was the abolition of the action of trim.
con. Everybody knew how forcibly that action had been
denounced, and how eloquently its evils had been des-
canted upon. But this clause embodied a provision giving
damages--let them mark the word—to the husband in
case of the adultery of the wife, and it provided, more-
over, that the inquiry into the assessment of damages
should be conducted the same as the procedure on a trial
for Grim. con. It might be said that the clause also
provided that the court might declare how the damages
would be apportioned, and that it might, if it saw fit,
settle them upon the children ; this, however, in no way
aff,:cted the question as regarded the of jection-
able principle of giving damages for the loss of a wife's
fidelity. The neat important amendment was that
having relation to those clergymen who might have
scruples with regard to the marriage of persons who
bad been devorced: To this amendment he did not in
anywise object, and indeed had it gone further it would
have had hie concurrence. But with respect to the next
amendment which enabled parties, where an incumbent
ol jected to marry them, to be married by another clergy-
man in that incumbent's church, he saw many serious
objections. He would remind the house that persons
could now by law be civilly married before the registrar,
and these could take the certificate of that registrar
before a c'ergyman and demand to have the mar-
riage ceremony performed. This would, he thought,
enable persons coming within this act t i be married at
any place by any clergyman not objecting to marry them,
and it was therefore unnecessary that that ceremony
should be performed in the church of the incumbent
who had conscientious objections to such a course. He
certainly must most earnestly warn the house against
this amendment, which would lead to evils, the end of
which no one could foretell. He had now touched upon
the principal amendments of the bill, and he thought
without adding one word more he ha I said enough to
convince the house that these amendments were of too
grave a character to be proceeded with at that period of
the year. (Hear ) He would next proceed to consider,
and that very briefly, the second reason in support of his
motion, viz , that the client ry ought to have further time
to consider this bill. The fact was, that the bulk of the
people had never considered this question until it became
pretty plain that:the bill would pass the other house,a pei iod
so recent that no one could contend that sufficient time had
transpired since then for the due consideration of so impor-
tant a question. In proof of this he would point to the
peti ions even at that moment coming in from the clergy,
men who, from their position, would bo expected to give
an early attention to the subject. And be would also
venture to instance himself as showing the effect which
due consideration of this question produced. When the
subject first presented itself to his mind, be was one of
those who thocght that facilities for divorce might be
safely extended, but further consideration had shown
him his mistake. And he might point also to a distin-
guished member of the other house—a man not likely
to be thoughtless in matters appertaining to religion—
in whose views a further consideration of this subject
had made considerable alterations. Under such circum-
stances be thought that for the country generally further
time should be given. The remaining ground upon
which he supported this motion was the imperfect na-
ture of the bill. Their lordships would find that this
bill was confined wholly to England, and thus whenever
the subject matter of it was to be extended to the rest
of the empire, a further act would be required.
After all, the gravest question of all involved in the
amendments was the extension of the grounds of divorce.
Their lordships male rote extension—the Commons

made a very material one; and in this respect the bill
was essentially altered. There was, in fact, considerable
difference in the conclusions come to by the two houses,
and the question was whether this difference was to be
settled as the result of deliberate judgment, or merely to
suit the wishes and convenience of the Government. He

trusted that their lordships would accede to the amend-
ment which he bad proposed, considering that in a
matter requiring so much consideration it would not be
decorous to legislate with anything like haste.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, in support of the
motion that the consideration of the Commons' amend-
ments be postponed for six months, that his noble
friend had addressed to their lordships arguments
founded on a variety of considerations ; but the greater
portion of those arguments had no reference to the
question whether the amendments should be considered,
but related to the question whether those amendments
were or were not improvements in the Lill. In the first
part of his address his noble friend pointed out the alte-
rations made by the Commons, which he represented as
anything but improvements ; but whether these altera-
tions would make the bill better or worse would be
matter for discussion when the particular amendments
referred to came under consideration, If his noble friend
had been able to show that the amendments were totally
new, and that they came upon their lordships by sur-
prise tliera might have been some weight in his argument,
but in point of fact they wera alteratious, with the merits

or demerits of which their lordships must have become
familiar through the debates which hld taken piece
.in
that house. First, as to the police or impolicy of
Giving jurisdiction to local courts. On that point he
did not hesitate to say, he thought it would have
been better to legislate by degrees ; but at all
events, the subject was discussed when the bill was
before their lordships, and the other house having since
decided that it was desirable to establish heal as well as
central courts, the question was one with which they were
perfectly competent to deal. The next question was the
extension of the grounds on which marriage was to be
dissolved iu favour of wives. Their lordships included
in the bill two grounds, and the House of Commons had
added a third. The only reason wby the commission of
an unnatural offence was not included by their lord-
ships was that it was considered undesirable to defile
the bill by allusion to such a subject especially as the
case was one in which according to the old practice
parties would be entitled to a divorce. As au objec-
tion to the consideration of the amendments, this omis-
sion was most absurd, for the case would not arise
perhaps more than once in a century. There were,
indeed, one or two other grounds of divorce intro-
duced into the House of Commons, but they came under
the same disgusting category as the other. The com-
mittee of their lordships, which sat two or three
years ago, theught that bigamy with adultery ought to
be a ground of divorce ; he yielded to that view, and
the House of Commons had added the case of rape ;
and the case in which the mistress was brought to reside
in the conjugal residence. It could not be said their
lordship's were not competent to discuss those amend-
ment. The next alteration to which his noble friend
alluded, was that which related to the clergy. No one
could say that that was a subject which their lordships
were not in a condition to dismiss, seeing that they had
had four divisions at four different periods in reference
to it. As regards the question of criin. con., he stood
in this position : he did not quite see his way to the
course taken by their lordships in abolishing the action,
because he felt that there might be cases in which pecu-
niary loss would arise from adultery, and that it would
not be safe to abolish it without providing some sub-
stitute. Their lordships came to an opposite conclu
sloe, and thought the action should be at once
abolished ; and what the House of Commons had done
was not simply to restore the action, but t*-) provide
that any money which might be awarded should be
,ottled, as the court might think fie, fur the wife
or fsr the children of the marriage. As regarded the
limited operation of the bill, it must he recollected that
the law of marriage and divorce was to a great ( xtent
governed by domicile, and that it was (xtremtly difficult
to legislate hi one country for what was to be done in
another. It might be that their lordships would see
their way to lei late for India, but the erebahility has
that on such a eubject India must legislate for itself, and
diffietetypriense7tpl
if it turned out that it lied not the poser of doing so the
I Milt are might have to confer it. As to the olijccion
that the bill was tto extend to Ireland, there was a
state of the po applying its provisions to that country (lur-
ing the
Sueisai.ori. There were peculiarities in the
consideration ;Patislir of Ireland which required special
concurrently
it was impossible to pass a bill
for that country
present one. It was saidthaty with the passing of the
givethee this bill ought to be
al ceromissisz.evecats issued to tirynfurther time for post-
poned,con-
sidering in order to
the subject. What time was now nearly ten
in-
quireyears aingtoositnheise maosrtoyimpthant
It was no
oat distinguished
party commission. One of the moat distinguished
members of it was his right hon. friend Mr. Wel.
pile, who concurred in the recommendations which were
framed. The right hon. gentleman was not in favour of
the present government, nor was he in any way oppesed