The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-19 00:00:00

very severe. He therefore thought the War Office oug
to resolve to increase the pay of that class. (Hear.) Then,
with regard to the men, his opinion was that their pay
ought to be increased 2d. a day, after their re-enlistment
at the expiration of their term of service. The proportion of
soldiers who re-enlisted was certainly comparatively very
small ; but he thought the increase of 2d. a day would have
the effect of inducing the men to re-enlist.
Colonel KNOX entirely concurred in all that had been
said by his hon. and gallant friend who had just addressed
the committee in relation to the medical officers, and he
joined with him most earnestly in urging upon the War
Department to take the recommendations made into their
serious consideration.
Colonel NORTH, for one, could not agree in what had
been said by the hon. and gallant officers in relation to the
medical department, and in his opinion the Government
instead of meeting with censure were entitled to credit in
this matter.
Mr. BARING thought that that would appear in the
votes. In answer to the difficult question put by the noble
lord the member for Herefordshire, viz., whether it was
possible to ascertain the military expenditure on behalf of
each colony, he said it was a matter under the consideration
of the committee upstairs, and he did not see any objection
in giving the different amounts of expenditure in each colony.
(Hear.) The question of the hon. member for Lambeth
might be answered by stating that the increase in the esti-
mates for the supernumeraries was in consequence of there
hating been an increase in the regiments. (Hear.) At
present there was no intention to remove the second surgeon
from the battalions of the Guards. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel NORTH thought it was an injustice that cavalry
officers should not receive command money as well as
artillery officers.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he found that the cost of the
staff abroad was £193,557, and the cost of the staff at home
was £133,340, making a total of £326,898. Now that was,
is his opinion, an enormous sum to pay under that head.
Mr. B. OSBORNE called attention to the fact that a
major-general had recently been appointed to command the
brigade of Foot Guards. Now he was not at all prepared
to say that that was not a proper appointment to make.
But if they were to adopt that arrangement, he did not see
why they should continue to maintain three colonels of the
three regiments of that force. The 'practice that formerly
prevailed was, that each of those colonels should command
the brigade in turn, but that could not be maintained if a
brigadier was permanently to receive a large amount. lie
also wished to know why it was thought necessary to
appoint a major-general in the Australian colonies, where
there was only a regiment or two stationed, with a lieutenant
general in New Zealand, as well as a major-general in
Nova Scotia.
After a few words from General UPTON,
Mr. CHILDERS agreed with the hon. member for
Liskeard, that no necessity seemed to exist for the appoint-
ment of a major-general to the command of the Guards
Brigade, or of a major-general in the Australian Colonies,
or of a lieutenant-general in New-Zealand. He disap-
proved of 13 surgeons being added to the Medical Staff at
the Cape of Good Hope, while the troops in that colony
were reduced one-third.
Major STUART KNOX believed the appointment of a
major-general in command of the Brigade of Guards was
quite unnecessary. That officer only had to perform the
ordinary duties which were discharged by colonels in the
line.

Lord A. CHURCHILL thought there was no necessity
for continuing the appointment which had been made after
the Crimean war. He should move that the vote before the
house bo reduced by £1,038, the expense of the major-
general and his staff.
Colonel DICKSON proposed that the vote of £105,000
be reduced by £9,823, the increase of the medical staff re-
muneration for this year.
Mr. BARING said the effect of the course proposed
would be to increase the number on the half-pay vote. He
thought the committee would hardly be inclined, without
further inquiry, to carry out such a reduction.
Mr. CHILDERS recommended the hon. and gallant
gentleman to persevere in his motion. Those who thought
the medical staff ought not to be increased were bound to
vote with him.
Colonel NORTH said he would vote for maintaining the
present staff.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said there had been an appeal ad
misericordiana made on behalf of the medical staff, but no
sympathy was manifested for the taxpayers. He hoped
they would divide, and then the country would know who
attended to their interests.
After some conversation the committee divided, and there
appeared—

For the reduction
Against
The vote wl‘alsatjityhoern;orefff to.
66
.. —2O
Lord A. CHURCHILL moved to reduce the pay of the
general commanding the brigade of Guards by the sum of
£1,028 14s. 7d.
Colonel LINDSAY said the -Adjutant-General now had
become, he was sorry to say, little better than aeletk in his
uvv.u. depar-.;went. A lieutenant-colonel commanding a
regiment of Guards was, in point of fact, brigadier.
Colonel DUNNE said they ought to take the whole sys-
tem of the staff generally, and not be taking it up in ques-
tions of detail. Let them take the whole question—Was,
the staff fitted for the service ?
Mr. B. OSBORNE wanted to know how they were to
deal with such questions except by taking them in detail.
After a few words from Mr. T. G. BARING,
Mr. MONSELL said that the expense of the brigade of
Guards had risen from £170,000 per annum to £330,000,
and if that system of extravagance went on they could not
know to what extent that system of extravagance would
run. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel KNOX thought that the appointment in question
in this vote was unnecessary.
Lord PALMERSTON said that as to the system of the
organisation of the battalion of the Guards, they had heard
from the hon. and gallant gentleman who had commanded
a regiment of,Guards, a decided opinion that the arrange-
ment would tend to the efficiency of the brigade of Guards.
Hon. gentlemen who were not military men were not de-
barred from forming an opinion upon military matters, but
they ought to give due weight to the opinions of military
men who were interested in this matter, and who were
anxious for the good of the service. With respect to the
point as to which was the best method of ensuring the effi-
ciency of that nucleus of our military force—namely, the
Guards—the question being whether those six battalions of
Guards were to be alternately under the command of dif-

ferent officers belonging to the Guards, or under the per..
manent command of a major or lieutenant-general, it was
clear to him that for the unity of system and for the regu-
larity of arrangement the proposition under consideration
was the best calculated for that purpose. (Hear, hear.) It
might be rertter of opinion what should be the amount
ourof
persons lit
agree that it should be as efficient as pos-
sible. He was of opinion that if placed under the direct
military
mustary force, but whatever that force was
all
inspection of one officer, who was not changed from month
to month, the brigade of Guards would be more efficient.
He hoped the committee would place confidence in the
opinion of military officers and sanction the arrangement.
Lord A. CHURCHILL said that if a General was ap-
pointed to the position in question it ought to be one who
had command of all the troops in the metropolis.
After a few words from Mr. A. SMITH,
The committee divided, when there appeared.—
For the amendment B6
Against it
Majority
Mr. B. OSBORNE then moved that the allowance of
£691 19s. 7d. to the Major-General in lieu of the Govern-
ment of Anapolis Royal be omitted.

Mr. BARING said the appointment in question had been
held by the Commanders-in-Chief of Nova Scotia. When
that appointment was abolished, this grant of money was
given t.) the military officer, who was also the civil officer of
the colony.

Captain JERVIS said the objection to the vote might be
got rid of if the grant had been converted into "table
money."

Mr. B. OSBORNE said that after the explanation of the
hon. gentleman opposite (Captain Jervis) he should not
divide. (Laughter.)
Mr. HUNT then proposed the omission of the vote of
miscellaneous contingencies, amounting to £75,028 in page
7, on the ground that there was no explanation of the item.
Mr. BARING said that the explanation was to be found
in page 29.

Mr. A. SMITH said there was no item in page 29 cor-
responding with the item of £75,000.
Mr. CHILDERS wanted to know why there should he
an increaso in the expenditure for the medical officers of
the Cape.

Mr. BARING was not then prepared to give an expla,
nation on that point.

Mr. CHILDERS then said he thought the vote ought to
be postponed.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY remarked that the vote of con-
tingences had been increasing from year to year.
Mr. A. SAIITH moved that the vote be postponed.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know why it was
such an enormous increase took place since 1858.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the vote could not be lessened
while those establishments were efficiently carried on.
General PEEL said it was utterly impossible that every
document could be given, or the details of each vote spe-
cified.

Mr. A. SMITH did not 'wish for details but details that

they could understand, in order to know what the vote was
for.

Mr. BARING said the vote could not be divided, nor
each particular item given.
Cul, DICKSON believed that hon. members were always
talking of economy, but here they were voting large sums
of money without any reduction whatever.

Sir M. PETO urged the Government to postpone the vote
until an explanation be given.
After a few words from Mr. BARING,
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the vote
Against it
Majority —9l
The Vote was then agreed to.

The next vote was £lO,OOO for annual allowances to the

Grenadier Guards.

Mr, CONINGUAM wished to know why it was ISO large

an allowance was given to the Grenadier Guards, while in
the line it was only £4OB. He wished the Under Secretary,
of State for War would give some explanation of that dis-
crepancy between the two sums.
Lord DUNKELLIN said the difference was owing to a
greater number of men being in a battalion of the Guards
than in those of the line, and of course the allowances
must be larger.
Mr. BARING, in explanatton, said that certain work
that was done in recruiting and certain allowances, caused
the increase to which the hon. member referred.l
Mr. BRUCE said the Guards had certain advantages
over other regiments, but he was at a loss tJ know why
they should have allowances and advantages in the pro-
portion of five to one over the other regiments.
Col. LINDSAY, after a few words from Sir HARRY
VERNEY, explained the grounds upon which the allow-
ances were made.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he found in the Life Guards one
officer to every ten men, and a non-commissioned officer to
every five men ; while in the ordinary cavalry regiments he
found there was one officer to every 16 men, and a non-
commissioned officer to every nine and a half men. Now
it was well known that the Life Guards had nothing to do.
(Laughter.) Well, they had nothing to do but to attend
upon her Majesty. He also found that in the Foot Guards
the p.ty of the officers was much larger than that of officers
of the same grade in other regiments, while the latter were
the men who were commonly called upon to go abroad, and
to fight for the country, and bear all the hardships of the
service.

Some discussion ensued, in which Sir F. SMITH, Col.
LINDSAY, and other hon. members took part, and termi-
nated in Mr. Coningham withdrawing his opposition to
the vote, which was then agreed to.
On
,the motion that a sum of £648,096 be granted to-
wards defraying the miscellaneous expenses.
Major STUART KNOX objected to the amount of the
vote, and having expressed his disapproval of the battalion
system of depots as most unsatisfactory, he moved as an
amendment that the vote be reduced by £41,337.
Some discussion ensued, inwhich Col. NORTH and Capt.
JERVIS defended the depot battalion system as operating
in a most beneficial manner in relation to the service.
Colonel DICKSON hoped his hon. and gallant friend
(Major Stuart Knox) would modify his amendment.
Colonel DUNNE called attention to the different systems
of drill that was in operation at the depots, and said he
knew of no system which was more objectionable. It was
a bad system, and ought to be altered.
Some discussion ensued, in which Colonel SYKES and
Mr. CARNEGIE took part, after which
Mr. BARING said he entirely concurred with the hon.

and gallant officer that the question was wholly one of
discipline. But the important question was whether the
soldiers were to be left to drill themselves, or to be drilled
by officers attached to the depot battalions for the purpose,
His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had ex-
pressed his most decided opinion in favour of the system.
Sir George Wetherell (a most distinguished officer) ani
General Love, Inspector-General of Battalion Depots, who
was also a most disinguished officer, were in like manner
in favour of the system. He might also state to the com-
mittee that he had received a letter from a high military
authority in France approving of the system, an I informing
him that they had adopted depot battalions of instruction
in that country in imitation of the English system.
Colonel DUNNE thought they ought to have an expla..
nation why the estimated expenditure for recruiting was
raised by £5,000 or £6,000.
Sir J. PAXTON wished to know if the vote of £41,337
were disallowed, would any further sum be asked from the
house in connexion with the expenses of staff battalions.

Mr. BARING feared, if the vote were disagreed to,
that provision should be made for the supplemental pay of
officers.

After some further conversation,
Mika- S. KNOX expressed a desire to withdraw the
amendment, but it was put and negatived without a divi
sion, and the item of £41,337 was agreed to.
On the question that the main vote of £618,096 be passed,
Mr. CHILDERS moved the omission of the sum of
£11,157, the allowance for the Foot Guards in lieu of the
stock purse formed for recruiting and hospital expenses.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that he had several amendments
to propose, and he claimed the right of doing so.
The CHAIRMAN said that it was not competent for the
hon. member to do so, as the vote for the depot battalions
had been agreed to.
Mr. CHILDERS withdrew his amendment, in order to
enable the hon. member for Lambeth to move his amend-
ments.
Mr. WILLIAMS complained that he had not been al-
lowed to ask for explanations respecting some items in the
votes. In page 9 there was a charge for marching allow-
ances, escorts, &c., £6,000 last year, and £15,000 tkis year.
The vote of last year for medical services was £148,000, this
year it was £lBB,OOO, being £40,000 more than that of last
year. Another item for the movement of troops amounted
last year to £73,000, and this year it was charged at £llO,OOO,
being £37,000 more than the charge of last year. Water
carriage last year was £64,000, this year it rose to £69,000.
On those two items there was an increase of £42,000.
Col. DICKSON rose to order. He hoped the hon. gen-
tleman's going into those items would not preclude others
from taking something earlier in the votes.
The CHAIRMAN said the hon. member (Mr. Williams)
was out of order unless he intended to conclude with a
motion. (Cries of "Move, move.")

Mr. WILLIAMS—No, lam not dono yet. (Laughter.)
There are several other items here altogether exceeding the
votes of last year by £90,748. I move that those items be
reduced by that amount.

The CHAIRMAN said the hon. gentleman might move
for a reductioa in the amount of the first item.

Mr. WILLIAMS then moved that the item for march.

ing allowances and conveyance of troops be reduced by
£9,000, which would make the vote the same as that of last
year.

Col. DUNNE said he would support the motion of the
hon. member for Lambeth. He could not see why, when
the army was decreasing the expense should be increasing.
Mr. BARING said the estimates had been carefully pre-
pared, and the excess, as compared with last year, was ac-
counted for by the votes of last year being inadequate.
After a brief discussion, in which Sir F. SMITH and other
hon. members took part,

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY complained that sums of money
voted for particular purposes were disposed of in other ways.
After a few words from Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR,
Mr. WILLIAMS concluded that the Government were
not justified in altering the applications of votes of money
made by the House of Commons. If this were allowed, the
votes of that house could not but be considered as a mere
farce.

Lord PALMERSTON said that certain charges could be
ascertained with perfect precision, such as the number of
troops, clothing, and the like, but in other cases there could
not be the same certainty, as was the case in reference to
the number of recruits and the removal of these recruits.
The expense in this latter must be conjectured, and last year
the estimate upon this point was not equal to the amount
required, and this year it was thought desirable to raise the
estimate in this particular. This was the explanation which
he had to offer to the committee on the subject.
Mr. MONSELL thought the observations of the noble
lord did not meet the objection which had been raised to
the vote.

Mr. HENL EY must say that he did not see the force of
the noble 19rd's observations. It was clear that Govern-
ment meant to recruit a smaller number of men than was
recruited last year, and therefore it was strange that the
vote should be increased.

Mr. BRUCE thought that £15,000 for moving 20,000
men was no very extravagant sum.
Lord BURGHLEY having said a few words,

Mr. T. G. BARING said in explanation the amount o;
this vote would not be more than was necessary.
• General PEEL having said a few words,

The amendment was negatived without a division.
On the question being put that the sum of £llO,OOO
should be voted for the removal of troops,
Sir F. SMITH moved as an amendment that the vote
should be reduced by the sum of £37,000.
Mr. BARING explained that a great portion of the ex-
pense was occasioned by officers moving about from place
to place to acquire a knowledge of their duties.
Sir F. SMITH then withdrew his amendment, and the
vote was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house
resumed.

THE QUEEN'S PRISON BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill, the
clauses were agreed to, and the house resumed.
The Reading Charities Bill went through committee.
Mr. CRAWFORD moved the second reading of the
Volunteer Tolls Exemption Bill. He wished it to be read
a second time merely pro forma, in order to introduce cer-
tain alterations in committee.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL recommended his hon.
friend to withdraw the bill, and bring in another which
would contain the proposed alterations.

The bill was then withdrawn.
CHARITABLE USES BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
REVISION OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

The CHANCELLO ft of the EXCHEQUER moved the
appointment of a select committee to revise the public
accounts.

Mr. HENNESSY objected to the appointment of the
committee, on the ground that there was not a single Irish
member's name in the list. The subject was a most im-
portant one, and one from the revision of which the Irish
members ought not t) be excluded.

Mr. FITZGERALD also regarded the question as a
most important one, and must say that it appeared strange
that the Government, in moving the appointment of such
a committee, should also have excluded from it every.Seotch
member.

Mr. LYGON moved the adjournment of the debate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
could not consent to the adjournment of the debate, and
with regard to the objections taken by the two hon. mem-
bers to the composition of the committee, and the absence
of any Irish or Seotch members in it, he did not think the
objection a good one, inasmuch as it appeared to him that
the three kingdoms were cc bound up in their interests that

it could be matter of little difference whether there were
Irish or Scotch members upon it.
The house then divided—
For the adjournment of the debate
Against it
Majority —2B

On the name of Mr. Cobden being proposed,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
had every reason to believe that Mr. Cobden would be able
to attend the house and discharge his Parliamentary duties
in the course of a fortnight.
Mr. Cobden's name was then agreed to.
Mr. WHITE moved that Mr. Baxter's name should be
substituted for that of Sir B. Leighton.
The SPEAKER said such a motion could not be made
without notice.

Mr. WHITE moved the omission of Sir B. Leighton's
name.

The amendment was negatived, and the committee as
proposed was appointed.
The house adjourned at 20 minutos to 1 o'clock.

PAIRS.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
FOR. AGAINST.
Mr. Beale with Mr. Hornby
Lord Galway
Mr. H. Berkeley .. Mr. King King
Lord Andover — Mr. Powys
Mr. Wykeham Martin
Mr. Merry
Mr. Augustus Smith
Colonel French
Mr. Murray — Lord Hamilton
Lord Dunkellin
Sergeant Pigott — Mr. Macaulay
Mr. Steel — Mr. Beresford
Mr. R. W. Crawford
Mr. Dent — Mr. Heygate
Alderman Copeland
Mr. Liddell
Colonel Powell
Captain D. Darner — Lord Henniker
Mr. Gregson
Hon. C. Howard — Mr. Cross
Baron M. de Rothschild — Hon. R. C. Hill
Baron L. de Rothschild — Mr. H. G. Sturt
TRUSTEES OF CHARITIES BILL.
FOR. AGAINST.
Mr. Beale with Mr. Hornby
Mr. Heneage .. . •
Mr. Merry
Hon. C. Howard — Mr. Cross
Mr. Blencowe — Captain Gladstone
Mr. Tite
Lord Andover — Mr. Powys
Mr. H. Berkeley.. — Mr. King King
Mr, Ellice, jun.
Mr. Wykeham Martin
Mr. C. Forster
Mr. Layard — Colonel Lowther
Mr. Ewing
Mr. Beamish
Mr. Moffatt — Sir John Trollope
Mr. Augustus Smith ..., Mr. Moody
Colonel Clifford
Mr. Shafte
Mr. Marshall
Colonel Kingscote — Mr. Knightley
Lord Hartington - — Mr. Peacocke
The Attorney-General
Lord Bury
Mr. R. W. Crawford — Colonel Taylor
Hon. T. Calthorpe — Sir J. Fergusson
Baron M. de Rothschild — Hon. It. C. Hill
Baron L. de Rothschild — Captain Lowther

LA TV INIELLMENCE.-April 18.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
DRUMMOND, COMMONLY CALLED VISCOUNTESS FORTH, V.
DRUMMOND, CALLED VISCOUNT FORTH.
This was the petition of the wife, praying for a
dissolution of the marriage on the ground of her
husband's adultery and cruelty, to which the re-
spondent did not answer.
It appeared, however, that the Queen's Proctor
deemed it advisable to intervene, as there were
grounds for suspecting that there might be collu-
sion between the parties.
Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Marshman were counsel
for the petitioner; and the Attorney-General, Mr.
Sergeant Pigott, and Dr. Spinks, in support of the
plea of collusion.
Mr. Marsham opened the pleadings, from which
it appeared that the petition was filed in 1860, and
it was on the record alleged that the petitioner had
been guilty of adultery subsequently, and that she
had been living in a state of adultery in different
parts of the metropolis and the United States.
Mr. Macaulay contended that the Queen's Proctor
was not justified in alleging this misconduct, and
should have limited his allegation to the charge of
collusion. "
Sir C. Cresswell stated that the Queen's Proctor
had acted under the instruction of the Court,
Mr. Macaulay then stated that he was not in a
position to prove the adultery of the respondent,
and therefore the petition must be confined to a
prayer for judicial separation. Under these circum-
stances he submitted that the collusion could not be
pleaded according to the section of the act of last
session, by which such plea was confined to peti-
tions for judicial separation. He stated also that
the petitioner traversed the plea on the part of the
Crown law officer, and was perfectly prepared to
contest the question with the Queen's Proctor.
Sir C. Cresswell said that he did not consider
that he could interfere at that stage of the case,
which must proceed. He would make his decree,
which could be appealed against.
Mr. Macaulay then stated the case. The respon-
dent was the son of the Earl of Perth, and the peti-
tioner, whose maiden name was Capel, was highly
connected through both her parents. The marriage
was solemnised in 1855, at St. Peter's, Pimlico,
and they continued to cohabit until the latter end
of 1858, when his conduct became so violent that
Lady Forth was obliged to separate from him.
From the time of the marriage until the separation
Lord Forth continued the ill-treatment to Lady
Forth, and also behaved with cruelty to the child,
and violence towards her sister and other members
of her family. They resided with her father and
mother after the marriage, Lord Forth not having
an establishment of his own, and it was during the
absence of the former that the alleged acts of vio-
lence were committed. The conduct of Lord Forth
was to be attributed, in all probability, to his in-
temperate habits, for some of the acts were of a
nature that could not be referred to any other
cause, and amongst those acts was a threat that he
would contract a loathsome disease and communi-
cate it to the child of which Lady Forth was then
pregnant.
Mrs. Charlotte Mary Capel, examined by Mr.
Macaulay. She said she was the mother of the
petitioner, and that she was present at the marriage
in 1855.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Her
daughter lodged at the house of a Mr. Clark, at 70,
Park-street, Grosvenor-square, in October last. She
went with Lady Forth to take the lodgings, and
the latter did not say that they were for a Mr. and
Mrs. Dearing. She did not believe that Mrs. Clark
asked her for any reference. She could not say
whether the lodgings were taken for Lady Forth
alone, or for her mad somebody else, and she would
not swear to that matter. Mrs. Clark might have
asked her who she was, but she did not recollect
her having done so. Perhaps Lady Forth did call
herself Mrs. Dearing. She did not call herself Lady
Forth, that she could answer for. She (witness)
did not give any name. She did not give the name
of Edwards, at least she did not recollect her having
done so. She visited Lady Forth at these lodgings,
and found a gentleman with her sometimes. She
declined to give his name.
Sir C. Cresswell informed witness that she must
answer this question.
Mrs. Capel—lt was Mr. Dearing. She believed
he took his meals there, and on some occasions she
was present when he did so. She never slept at
these lodgings, but she sometimes remained till
nine o'clock at night, and she left Mr. Dearing
there. Lady Forth used to breakfast at one o'clock,
and she saw Mr. Dearing breakfasting with her.
Sir C. Cresswell—Did you hear from your
daughter that she was living there ?
Mrs. Capel--I should say I did.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott proceeded to examine the
witness to show that the same degree of intimacy
subsisted between Lady Forth and Mr. Dearing
in other lodgings, but the learned judge considered
that after what the witness had already deposed it
was unnecessary to pursue the examination further
in order to establish the plea of adultery against the
petitioner.
The lady then stated, in reply to Sergeant
'Pigott, that Lady Forth went to America in the
spring of 1860, but the petition had been filed four
months previously.
By Mr. Macaulay—Lord Forth left her daugh-
ter at the end of 1858. Except for short intervals,
they lived with her after the marriage, as Earl
Perth gave them very little. Mr. Dearing was in-
troduced to her at Dieppe, and afterwards called
on the family as an ordinary visitor. Before Lady
Forth went to America she was not satisfied. There
was no improper intimacy between her and Mr.
Dearing.
Lady Forth, who is a young lady of very fashion-
able and prepossessing appearance and manner,
was examined by Mr. Macaulay at considerable
length. She stated that she lived with Lord Forth
until about two years and four months ago. After
the marriage they went to Brussels, where they
remained about a month, and after their return
they went to live at her father's. Lord Forth
was scarcely ever sober, and was in the habit of
using language to her that was too frightful to
be repeated. Before they went to Brussels,
and in three days after the marriage, he pro-
posed that they should start for Brussels, to which
she objected, saying that the could not go without
means. They were in a brougham at the time, and
he got out and desired her to go to a very bad place.
At Brussels his conduct was most cruel to her,