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

who would have taken part in the conversation, was
not nresent, he did not think it. expedient to go on with
it, but he should do so at the first opportunity.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS (IRELAND).

i and thought the committee had decided wisely in not
‘ giving the jurisdiction to the county court.
Sir G. GREY retracted the word ".shabby," which
be bad used in the heat of debate,
The committee divided upon the amendment, when
the numbers were—
Ayes 9B
Noes .. 87
Majority
Clauses 19 and 20 were then agreed to.
On clause 21- being proposed,
Mr. DRUMMOND moved in line 1 to leave out "in
alt cases which " to "direct," in line 2, and insert "the
, court shall have decreed a judicial separation, it shad
also make a decree or order for alimony, and it shall
also." For he held no decree of separation ought to be
pronounced without alimony.
The AT FORNEY-GENERAL objected tothe amend-
ment because cases for judicial separation occurred in
which no necessity for making an order for alimony
existed.
Mr. HENLEY said the clause, if the amendment were
introduced, would tend to promote snits for the sake of
the alimony.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause agreed
it, as were clauses 22 and 23. •
Clause 24 was struck out.
Upon clause 25,
Mr. WARREN moved that the chairman do report
progress, which was negatived.
Mr. DRUMMOND moved that the word " inces-
tuous" be left out before "adultery," so that man and
woman might be put upon the same footing.
Mr. PULLER said hi viewed marriage as a Divine
institution, but as to the manner in which a breach of its
obligation was treated by human laws, was a matter of
wide consideration. It could not be viewed in the same
manner with regard to women as to men. In a religious
sense the sin •as as great on one side as on the other,
but in a social sense the crime was greater on the part of
the woman than the man, because of their obligation
with respect to the custody of the children. (Divide.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said he considered the dangers
attending the incorporation of divorce a yinculo into the
lave of England far exceeded the benefit conferred, but
the principle having been decided, it was important to
make the number of cases to be operated upon as small
as possible. He, therefore, supported the motion of the
hon. member for West Surrey, because the principls of
equality between man and woman in cases of adultery
was moat injorious. He was amazed at the facility with
which the question had been dealt with by those who
considered that adultery was equal in both sexes, and
that it ab dished the marriage tie. After a marriage
had been confessedly broken by adultery, by what right
was a woman to be compelled to live outwardly as
though she were bound to the husband who had corn-
milted adultery ? But he disputed all the argu-
ments upon social expediency. He believed the social
expediency had not been shown at all. The mistake
had ben in the way that the temptation to adultery
had been considered in the two sexes. He believed
that with women, sensuality was the cause of but
very few cases of criminality but that their offences arose.
rather from social aversion to the husband caused by his
neglect of his wife, and criminal attachment to other
women. On the part of the husband, he believed that
sensuality was the chief cause of adultery, and be believed
that legislation directed against that offence might be
effectual. He believed that it would puzzle any man in
that house to answer the protest of Lord Lyndhurst
against the way women were proposed to bo treated by
that bill. The operation o; the bill was a direct induce-
ment for the husband to add cruelty and deAertion to his
crime of adultery, in order to qualify himself for union
with the woman with whom he had committed adultery.
It bad been laid down by Lord Stowell that cruelty to
justify a divorce must involve personal violence ; but
Was th. re no cruelty known in civilised society but
that? Was there not the cruelty of insult and of c intempt
much more irritating to the sensitive mind of a highly
educated woman than even personal violence itself ?
They were not to accept the doctrine that they were intro-
ducing no new low. They were not to take the dictum
of Lord Campbell that they had divorce by the English
law, when the same Lori Campbell said they bad not.
They wtre extending to the lower classes what had
hitherto only applied to the upper classes, who were
more open to the operation of public; opinion. He read
a letter from a lady whom he did not know, alleging
that the law would operate most cruelly upon women,
legalising divorce on the part of the man, and giving no
relief to the woman. It would destroy the sanctity of
marriage. She complained of the sorrows she had suf-
fered from the cruel infidelly of her husband, and as-
serted that the bill would lamentably increase the evils
which bore so heavily on herself.
Mr. WIGRAM regarded the proposed bill as involv-
ing the most serious and dangerous evils. He agreed
that there ought to bs equality for the two sexes, but he
did not regard this as a privilege, for it would not be an
advantage i• have such rights.
Mr. NAPIER said this was one of the most difficult
clauses cf the whole bill. In 99 cases out of 100, the
adultery of the wife was caused by the cruel neglect of
the husband. In Scotland the number of divorces at
toe suit of the wife ware al frequmt as- those at
the suit of the husband. Tae remedy was to make
adultery criminal. If only a fine was inflicted and the
adulterers might intermarry, adultery would be made a
very respectable offence. If adultery was made a crimi-
nal offence, there would be few such offences, and if rho
remedy was given to the wife she would only avail her-
self of it under extreme circumstances. As the bill stood
' it would be a remedy for the rich excluding the poor,
for the husband excluding the wife.
Mr. BUXTON argued that the distinction propose]
by this clause would be justified by the instinctive feel-
ing of mankind, and by the arrangements of nature, both
in the animal world and in human societies, in whieh
polygamy had frequently been permitted to the male sex,
but never to the female. He tbot'ght it the most funda-
mental principle of statesmanship that laws should chime
in with intuitive cowmen sense; and that in all ages
and nations it had been felt that the adultery of the
woman brought ruin on the marriage state, bat not eo
the simple unfaithfulness of the husband, though of vouree
it was a foul transgression of the laws of God.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said the speech of the hon.
gentleman who had just sat down appeared to have
raised considerations and to have suggested reasons, in
his (Mr. Buxton's) view far too grave to be disposed -of
without some observations upon them, and he hoped the
hon. gentleman would bear with h.m fora few moments.
The hon. gentleman had stated principles on which he
thought, and, as he (Sir W. Heathcote) understood,
mainly thought that the distinction between the two
sexes was to be maintained in this enactment. He had
mated the only principle on which it could be maintained,
and that principle was one which ought to startle that
assembly, when they recollected that it was the princi-
ple of polygamy. (Laughter.) Tae bon gentleman said
—at least so he understood him—that it was to be in-
ferred, from the instincts of mankind in former days
towards polygamy, teat there was a distinction between
the relations of the sexes which ought to govern the com-
mittee in dealing with the proposed enactment, and that
it followed from the institution of polygamy which pre.
veiled in many parts of the world, and even among the
Jews, that the sexes did stand, with respect to that rela-
tion, on a different footing from each other. Wes it cot
a fact that by the operation of Christianity the civilised
world hail come to regard polygamy in its true lght ;
and was it not to be inferred that by the very same pro-
cess by which mankind hal come to abhor that system
they would look with su-picion upon an enactment which
could only be justified with reference to it ? (Hear,
hear.) Christianity had extirpated the public recogni-
tion of polygamy, but it hal not extirpated many of the
shades of it, which still remained as the relics of a bar-
baric age. Tney ought, therefore, to be on their guard
when they came to deal with an enactment based en
such principles as that before the committee. It was in-
cumbent on them to take that first opportunity of -enter-
ing a protest against what was in itself an injustice and
based on principles that wonli not bear the light of day.
(Hear, hear;) He hoped, therefore, the committee
would entirely repudiate the clause as it stood, and vote
for the amendment of his hon. friend the member for
West Surrey.
Mr. DRUMMOND reminded the committee that
they were about to vote on the omission or retention of
the single word "incestuous," as applied to the adultery
of this husband.
Mr. WALPOLE said, it was quite true 'that was the
question, but the point that had been raised, and most
properly raised, was whether the rule or pra .tice which
now prevailed of making a distinction between the sexy.
with reference to divorce a vinculo, but not to judicial
separation, was proper cr otherwise. He entirely con-
curred with his hon. friend (Sir W. Heathcote) that the
distinction could not be justified on the ground that the
man was to be allowed to live in a state analogous to
polygamy. He also concurred with his right hoe.friend
the member-for the University of Oxford that the sin or
crime of adultery, on whichever side it might be com-
mitted, was precisely the same in the sight of God, and
that the wo an, as well as the man, had a perfect right
to have it so considered on all religious grounds ; but the
only question was whether on social grounds and civil con-
siderations it wag expedient or inexpedient to make the
distinction between the two which was recognized in the
clause as it stood ? They had it on the authority of Chan-
cellor Kent, the Americ in jurist, that he found that, by
allowing the same right of divorce to the woman as to the
man, the very offence was brought about which it was
the interest of society to prevent, because the man bad
recourse to it in order that he might obtain a divorce.
The Legislature of this country also, in the divorce bills
` bad egged fror tie 10 tie- bad -

In answer to Mr. KIRK,
Mr. HERBERT raid that the evidence taken before
the Commissioners of Endowed Schools (Ireland) had
been printed, but it would be incomplete to report. The
delay was owing to the illness of one of the commissioners.
Fle believed the report would be ready in a few days, the
commission being on the point of expiring. It would
not be published till it had been laid on the table of the
house.

TROOPS FOR INDIA.
In answer to Mr. VANSITTART,
Mr. VERNON SMITH said Government had sent
nut one regiment to replace the troops withdrawn from
India during the Crimean war, and three battalions of
the 60th Rifles. Four regiments had been sent to the
Point de Gale to rendezvous, and to be sent to Bombay
or Madras at the discretion f the Indian Government,
The Indian Government had made a requisition for two
regiments of foot for Madras and two for Bombay.
There would alio; be sent two companies of foot artillery
and two battalions of foot guards
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
In arswer to Mr. HARDY,
Sir G. GREY said the Government bad intended to
refer the seven consolidation bills that had come down
from the Lords to a select committee, but as there was
not time to do so this session, be should withdraw the
bills, to be reintroduced next session.
OATHS BY MEMBERS.
Mr. NEWDEGATE asked, in reference to the cono•
mittee on this subject, whether by "gentlemen of the
long robe" was meant all who had at any time been
call• d to the bar or only those who were in actual prac-
tice ? Also whether, in order to c imply with the stand-
ing order which required the names of members of
committees to be entered in a list, the officers of the
house could not take the names of all who attended ?
The SPEAKER said the officers of the house had
done all they could in entering the names of the members
nominated by the house. If anything more was required
it must be by resolution.
H
In reply to Mr. TECI .
WARREN,RCUITS
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, the committee appointed
to inquire into the administration of justice at the As-
sizes had agreed to a voluminous report, recommending
a modification of some of the existing circuits.
CHIMNEY POTS AT SOMERSET HOUSE.
In the absence of Lard EBRINGTON,
Mr. A. STAFFORD excited much merriment by
putting a question which he observed he knew nothing
about, as to whether certain chimney pots invented by
Mr. Billing and placed upon part of Somerset-house had
been found to answer, and if so, whether it was intended
to substitute them for the many verities of unsightly
chimney pots which disfigure the remainder of the build-
ing ? The hon. gentleman also inquired what was to be
done to pro bide better accommodation at her Majesty's
drawing-rooms, and expressed a hope that no expense
would be-incurred without the consent of Parliament.
Sir B. HALL said tbat AS to the important question
of the chimney pots, he could not reply till next session.
Plans for the improvement of St. James's Pelace were
in preparation, but no expense would be incurred with-
out the consent of Parliament. There was much less
inconvenience at the last drawinb-room.
The adjournment to Monday was agreed to.
THE KING OF OUDE.
Sir F. KELLY presented a petition from the Queen
of Onde, her erdest sou, and the brother of the king, all
resident in this country. They expressed the deepest
pain and regret at the news received from India respect-
ing the general defection of the sepoy troops, and they
also expressed pain and eurpri-e at its being suppo-ed
that their relative, the King of Oude, had been at all
concerned in it. They denied all complicity on the part
of that sovereign in the transactions that have Wien
place, and said that from the ae.uraeces which they had
received from him they were convinced that he was en•
tirely innocent of the charges brought against him.
They stated that all the members of the royal family of
Oude are attached and faithful to their connection with
Great Britain, and declared that they look for the re-
dress of any wrongs they have sustained to the green
and Parliament of Great Britain: The petitioners
prayed that they might have an opp irtunity of proving
the innocence of their relative and corresponding with
I him.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CA USES BILL.
The house again went into committee on this bill, Mr.
Bouverie in the chair.
Oa clause 17,
Sir E. PERRY said he was surprised to hear last
night fiat it was a part of the principle of the bill to dis-
courage judicial separations. They must swain go into
the principle. He objected to the bill apart from theolo-
gical grounds. He admitted that Parliament had a right
tie affirm the principle of divorce if they, thought proper.
He referred to the customs of the Jews as illustrating
the origin of divorce. Scotland was no criterion. Scot-
land was one large parish. (A. laugh.) Its population
was no greater than that of London, and from the in-
quisitive disposition of the people, every man's affairs
were known to all the rest. (Laughter.) He thought
the extension of divorce objectionable on grounds
of expediency, in which even a sceptic might
concur. He apgreed with the noble lord the
member for London, that the bill as it at
present stood would fail to give the poor man a
remedy. The bill was also defective in reference to the
separate earnings of married women when living with
their husbands, and he moved an amendment to obtain
that object.
Mr. HARDY objected to the amendment, It would
have the effect of separating the interests that should
exist between husband and wife.
Mr. MALINS also condemned the amendment. He
was at a loss to understand why it was proposed that
each powers should be given to women living amicably
with their husbands. He had no objection to such pre-
tection being given to a woman against her husband
when separated, and from her husband's creditors, but
it must be done in a different manner from that now
proposed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said be felt certain
the committee would not agree to such a clause, and he
suggested the withdrawal of the amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. DRUMMOND proposed an amendment that re-
liet should be given to the wife whether deserted or
cruelly treated by her husband, but it was negatived
without a division.
After some remarks fro n Sir J. BULLER,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL paid that the clause
was not originally in the bill It had been introduced
since in accordance with the humane feelings of a noble.
lord. He (the Attorney-General) thought difficulties
would arise in its working, and he suggested it eh -uld be
struck out for the present. If the committee acceded to
his suggestion, be would pledge himself to frame a new
clause with a view to ace implish what was de,ired.
After some remarks from Sir E. Perry, Sir J. Buller,.
and Mr. Collins,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the feel-
ing of the committee appeared to be in favour of his sug.
gestion he submitted further, that as clause 18 was of a
similar character to clause 17, it would be better to ex-
punge both, and he would undertake to bring up in
committee amended clauses in lieu of them.
Toe clauses were then withdrawn.
On clause 19,
Mr. L BUT I' moved an amendment giving power to
the judges of the county courts to hear the cases which
were provi led for by this clause. The ,clause was to
give redress to a deserted wife. As the clause at pre-
s stood that redress could only be given in the new
court of divorce.
Mr. PACKE thought the judges of the county courts
had already toe much to do.
Mr. DRUMMOND hope] they would not create
any new courts.
Lerd J. MANNERS wool] move the insertion of
words of larger import than those of the honourable and
learned member.
The AT ro RNEY-GENERAL said this clause might
involve questions of the highest importance. If ahu •
band deserted his wife the que--tion to be tried would be
whether he had desalted her without reasonable cause.
One reasonable cause would be adultery, and that would
involve the question of divorce, so that in reality the
inferior court might investigate matters which would lie
with the superior court alone. He had no objection to
the county court having the power to adjudicate upon
matters affecting judicial separation, but ae was decid-
edly opposed to giving the county courts the power of
investigating the qeestion of divorce.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the proposal of the hon.
and learned gentleman (Mr. Butt) might lead to most im-
portant questions. If the power were given to the county
courts of adjudicating upon one matter in the bill, the
power ought to be ex';ended to the others. He agre -d
with the hon. and learned gentleman that, if they abo-
lished any local tribunals, they ought t ) establish equi
valents. He would not enter into the question whether
the county ceurte were fit tribunals to deal with these
questions ; bat if they were not, they ought to be made.
Nord J. MANNERS suggested the adoption of word.,
which would raise the question of lmal jurisdiction, with-
out pledging the committee to the county courts,.
Mr. BUTT willingly seceded to the suggestion offered
by the noble lord.
Mr. MALINS objected to the withdrawal of the
amendment, as he Was anxious to obtain the opinion of
the committee on the question of the fitness of the county
courts

peso.. Jin tune to time, .iad always deemed it
After a short discussion, the amendment of the hon. a wise and prudent thing to recognize the distinction
Member fur Youghal, which gave the jurisdiction to the made in the clause now under consideration, and, if his
county courts, was negatived without a division, right hoc, friend the member for the University of Ox-
The amendment of Lord J. MANNERS, introducing ford would refer to the judgments given by the learned
the words " any court to be hereinafter named," was put lords in the other HouEe of Parliament on ,he subjeo-,
to the committee. he would find that they expressed their belief that con-
Sir G. GREY inquired, now that the committee bad nivance at adultery would take place if the wife were al-
decided that the county courts should not have juriedic- lowed to obtain a divorce on the same ground as the bus-
tion, what were the local courts which were to have the ba-d. He ({r. Wa,pole) therefore thought the distinc-
jorisiietion. (Hear, hear.) tion a wise one, and that the consequences of the crime
Lord J. MANNERS said that the house having ex- I of aduLery were.very different in two cases, leading as
pressedmaer an opinion in favour of local jurisdiction in this i it did in the one to a spurious offspring, but not in the
metmbe,rsit was for the Government and not for hon, other.
they Ix,' _to euggest the constitution of any court which i ' The CHAIRMAN put the question, "that the word
pia was to test the sincerity of the Government and the 1
ap e for the purpose. His ob-
ight consider ad t d
committee i incestuous stand part of the bill," upon which the COM-
lk the that increased facilities should mittee divided, when the numbers were—
be given to the
divorce,
and humbler classes of sopiety Ayes
126
for obtaining Noes 65
Majority against the amendment —6l
Sir G. GREY colitendedu that it was a most shabLy The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the corn-
course to.. adopt to throw
whole responsibilityof estapb?inshthe Government the 1
mittee rep irt progress and resume on Tuesday evening,
throughout the a 'untry for jurhis new local courts which was agreed to, and the house resumed,
ction inthis
The Government declined to have any
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
responsibility in I In answer to Lori JOHN MANNERS,
the matter.
Mr. BUTT thought that clauses might be b i The CHANCELLOR of tte EXCHEQUER said that
up on a future occasion for referring tiles.
matters
i the civil service estimates would be taken on Monday
s t.. ! and the Pr bate and Administration Bill on Wednesday.
local o its of some description.
I
.Sir J. PAKISGTON thought that the conduct of the Tic ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
noble lord did not deserve to be characterised as shabby, :
read third time on Monday.