The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-14 00:00:00

rt) irb 46''4"bition

SUN OFTICE, Seven o'clock.

HPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

SOUSE OF LORDS.--(This Evening.)
The Loan CsANCELLO took his seat on the woolsack
5 o'clock.
Lord ST. LEONARDS presented a petition from a
reon complaining that a snit which was instituted in
133 was still undecided.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was at present
3 acquainted with the suit referred to, but he would
.ake inquiry into the subject. Tne noble and learned
rd remarked that suits were very frequently allowed
, sleep without the suitors taking steps to bring them
,fore the court.

---
Lord ST. LEONARDS, after a few observations on
ie above petition, called attention to the present de-
ctive state of the law of domicile.
Lord CAMPBELL said that legislation was much
iqufred on this subject. He had been studying the law
t domicile for the last 40 years, and he did not even
.ow know at present where he was don-is:led.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the difficulty was
vith respect to the question of fact not of law. The
abject rasa very difficult one, and wonll require much
,ionsideration.
THE EMBODIMENT OF THE MILITIA.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said it was to be regretted
if.at the short time allowed for asking questions
bould be occupied with a debate on the law of
mica's. (Hear, hear.) The question he wished to
..sk was one of the greatest interest, and therefore he
thought that be bad better avail himself of the present
moment to ask the noble lord the Secretary for War
what application he intended to make of the very inade-
quate sum of 200,0001. for the embodiment of the
militia t He of course had no means of getting
official information, but he had taken trouble
to get correct information on the subject he was
o,ont to bring under the consideration of their
rdships' house. He assumed that 18 battalions bad
;her been sent or bad been ordered to India ; that
the five regiments that had been sent to China
had had their destination changed, that the five
regiments which stood next for foreign service had been
warned, that two regiments would leave the Cape
and rowed to India, and that the 37th Regi-
ment would be sent thither from Ceylon. At present
there were 22 battalions in India, and consequently when
the reinforce'n erste were all sen t out there would be 52 bat-
talions of infantry, a larger force than was in the Crimea.
But when we had E 0 battalions in the Crimea, what was
our position at home ? We were reduced to 11 batt
how, but at the same time we had an effective militia
force of 66, 000. Seventeen regiments were employed in the
Mediterranean garrison, and he assumed that the force
of theca regiments amounted to 11,000.- We had
now at home eleven battalions, and it was
understood that three other regiments bad been ordered
home. We should, therefore, have twenty-one battalions
at home, while during the. Crimean war we had but 11.
He thought the 200,0001, would only enable the
Government to embody 9,000 men for six months, and
therefore taking into censideratioa the loss of the ser-
vice of 55,000 militiamen there would altogether be a
loss of the services of 38,000 less of armed men in the
country than we had during the Crimean war. He looked
upon the present war as of more importance tban
that which occurred in the Crimea. Considering
the nature of the climate of India and the casualties
which always took place in operating against
an enemy, be was of opinion that this country would
require to raise 15,360 recruits annuAlly to main-
tain the force in India in an efficient state.
He, himself thought that the whole of the militia
should be embodied, and he was informed that the only
additional expense would be half a million sterling.
[LEFT SPEAKING

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(This Day.)
The SPEAKER tack the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE DUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Mayor's Court of the
Ciby of Loudon Bill and the Newry and Enniskillen
Railway Bill were considered and agreed to.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, resuming
the considerat7on of clause 25.
Lord JOHN MANNERS moved to insert the words,
" or of adultery preceded or followed by the commission
of s crime for which the husband is sentenced to penal
serviimde."
Sir G. GREY complained that no notic3 had been
given o'f the amendment, which involved an entirely new
principle, which there bad been no time to consider.
Under these circumstances he trusted that the committee
would not_eanc.ion the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY thought that what the noble lord in-
tended to convey was that desertion being now admitted
one of the adjuncts of adultery for which divorce might
be granted, absence under the sentence of a Court, con.
joined with the same circumstances of adultery, should
also be taken as a ground for divorce. The words
would, no doubt, require very careful and close conside-
ration. For example, if a woman had condoned the
offense of adultery on the part of the husband, she ought
not to possess the right to set. up the case afresh.
Mr. GLNDSTONE concurred with the Home Secre-
tary that the noble lord should take time to consider the
matter, and that. if he thought a discussion upon the
question advisable, it should take place upon the re-
port.

Lord LOVAINE thought that divorces should be
granted in cases of adultery followed by hopeless lunacy.
He recommended the noble lord to postpone his amend-
ment for further consideration.
Mr. HOPE opposed the amendment, and cited the
1 aw of Sweden in confirmation of the undesirability of
giving legal effect to such a provision as that rec)m-
mended by the noble lord.
Mr. HEATHCOTE supported the clause.
Mr. MALINS thought that there should be no
divorce unless there was an actual abandonment with
intention, in consequence of adulterous connection. He
could not support the amendment, even if it were post-
poned for future consideration.
Mr. DE VERE considered that the bill was not only
not founded upon religious sanctions, but that, on
the contrary it was entirely at variance with all religious
obligations. With regard to the amendment of the noble
lord, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
Lord J. MANNERS said he had no time to give
notice of the clause by placing it on the paper. The
government were so determined to press the bill night
and day, that members bad not time to look an inch
beyond their noses. (Laughter.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE considered that the bill was un-
worttAy of the learning of those who were supposed to
be its authors.

After some further dl.cussion the amendment pro-
posed by Lard John Manners was withdrawn.
Mr. STAPLETON moved an amendment to the effect
that when a woman had obtained a decree against her
husband for the restitution of conjugal rights, and then
adultery was committed by the husband, that should be
a sufficient cround of divorce a viiiculo.
Sir G. GREY. oppost4 the amendment, of which, he
paid, he did not see the force, and eventually it was
withdrawn.

No other amendments being proposed, the question
was put that clause 25 should stand part of the
question.

Mr. GLADSTONE intimated that although he would
not himself move its omission, he should be prepared to
Support any other member who might do so, in order
that the opinion of the house upon the principle of the
bill might be once more recorded. He then vindicated
the conduct of the opponents of the bill from the charge
of obstruction, and express,d his hope that, as the most
difficult clause of the bill had been got over, more
rapid progress might be made with the remainder until
they got to cause 53, which they would all wish to have
settled,

Lord PALMERSTON accepted the declaration just
made with great pleasure, and disclaimed all wish to
hurry the bill improperly through its stages.
After some remarks from Lord John Russell, Mr. Na-
pier, and other members, Clause 25 was agreed to,
having occupied the committee during the whole
and a con4hlerable porti )n of two others.
On clause 26,

Mr. PULLER, moved as an amendment to leave
out "presented by a husband," and to insert " for
the dis'olution of a marriage on any petition for
a decree of judicial separation on the ground
of adultery being presented." The object or the amend-
ment in connexion with one he had to propose on clause
31 was to provide that every party brought before a
court and found gu;l`,y of arinhery shou'A be punished
by fine or irnpr s mnent, or fine and iin,-t-eisonment at the
discretion of the judge. Ile achnitte.i that this would
bs a great innovation upon the exiAing law, but he
contended that it naturally, legitimately, and necessarily
grew of the changes in the legal process which the
lffected.
Mr
• n --EXLEY said that the cause as it stood was
one-sided, and
tzquired amendm ant ; but be did not
think that
be dragge
that both partiesdn iZto lintg about judicial separation ought to
uhoillit the rame time he c.,nsidered
going into court. ld bawl the same facilities for
The t, Tro EY-GENF
.i
the clause so as protect th,, RAL consented to modify
to the Court a d'scretior%ray.' eged adulteress by giving
respondent in the suit. Power to make her a co-
Mr. Ayi too, L-;rd Lovaine, and lir Bovin
obtained leave
offered s9we observ:lti ens on the clause.' having
The CHAIRMAN reported progre,s, and
to sit ap.in.
Lord PAL MERSTON sa'd the bill would he
ceeded with this evening. The house would TneJ)rtZ
morrow at twelve o'clock, principally to pass certain
unopposed
bills a stage, and the Divorce bill would be
-
proceeded . pith again at 12 on Mcnda y.
MILITIA BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
WHINY (EAST INDIA) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.

At tour o'c'ock the house adj9urned.
At six o'clock the house resuirled, and was
[LEFT SITTING

LONDON GAZETTE---.(fills Eirening..)

CROWN-OFFICE, AUG. 1.2.
MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IX THIS FRESENE
PARLIAIIENT.
Borough of Beverley—Henry Edwards, of Pye Neat,
near Halifax, the comity of York, Esq., the room of