The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-18 00:00:00

itty It' 4 6 ski ri 0.141, ip 11 MI). A.. V_ Yi4y DIST Tliii ti.„it. PG CI A I' 1 t'i, igAY

c.tuse by the bill i ciergy would be culled on to act Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official asslgnec, Pa-
n opoosition to their ordination vows. Without the singhall-street ; Giltspur-street. PARLIA2I2I.NT.
John Witherden, coal merchant, Me of Dunstable, Bed-
amendment he proposed the clergy would have to Rio- John
Aug. 27, at eleven, arid Oct. 2, at ene,.at the
Bed-
13[H their non4niences or aba-idon their position.
Mr. WIGRAM su orted the amendment as an act Court of Bankruptcy. Cannan, official assignee, Alder-
PPmanbury ; Armstrong, Old Jewry.
cf justice to the clergy. The marriage ceremony Charles Dorrett, dealer in wines, Lincoln's-inn, Au 7.
was framed on the oeinion of the church, that marriage 27, at half-past twelve, and Oct. 2, at eleven, at the Omit
of Bankruptcy. Cannan, official assignee, Aldermanbury ;
was indissoluble ; but the house having decided to the
contrary, they were bound either to modify the marriage Rees, Cppthall-court, City.
ceremony su as to remove the lawful impediment that George Young, victualler, Old-street-road, Aug. 28, at
would exist under that service, or else give them an one, and Oct. 2, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
option to celebrate it or not. He thought there was not Cannan, official assignee, Aldermanbury; Wright and
Bonner, Fenchurch-street.
John Frederick Augustus Minch merchant, Mincine.-
time to do the former this session, and as it was tinad-
lane Aug 31, at one, andb Sept. P, at' twelve,. at the Court
visable to force the clergy in hostility to the law, as had
of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee, Guildhal-cham
Dawson and Bryan, Bedford-square.
been the case in Prussia, on this point, it was better to
give them an opt onal course of proceeding. He never ; bers ;
rec illected a memorial presented to Parliament so nu-
John Hinkley, jun., corn dealer, Brentwood, Essex,
userouely signed by the members of one profession as Aug. 28, at half-past one, and Oct. 2, at half-pest eleven,
that by the clergy on this point, which he looked upon lat the Court of Bankruptcy. Cannan, official assignee,
as importing that the whole of the clergy were unani- Aldermanbury; Melton, Thomas and Hollams, Mincing-
MOU3 on it. He thought a few cases of marriage 1 lane.
of divorced persons that had been solemnized was no reason
for their withholding the relief asked for by the whole
body of the clergy.
Lord EBRINGTON supported the amendment,
General THOMPSON wished to know what clergy.
man was likely to bo made a martyr under this bill. A
divorced person would not be likely to seek out a clergy.
man who would not marry him, with a view of directing
attention to the misfortune under which he laboured,
but rather resort to a clergyman—and they were always
to he found—who would marry divorced persona.
Mr. C. FOSTER expressed a hope that the Govern-
ment would accede to the amendment.
Mr. AYRTON considered that the amendment would
have the effect of strengthening tbe power of clergymen
who were Romanista in heart, and would enable them to
carry out their views of marriage being a sacrament and
indissoluble. He admitted that the conscientious scru-
ples of the clergy should be resp-cted, but the same
liberty of conscience that they claimed for themselves
they should grant to others. (Hear.) WHlst therefore
they refused to perform the service they should
not have the power of shutting up the parish church
which was the property of the State, and prevent the
parishioners 'rotn being married there by a clergyman
who was willing to perform the marriage ceremony.
Mr. WALPOLE supported the amendment on what
he considered unanswerable ground, viz , that Puha-
meet had no right to impose on any person or class of
persons in this country the painful dilemma of obeying
or disobeying two laws set before them—(hear, hear)—
that of the statute of Charles 11., that required the per-
formance of the marriage ceremony in a particular man-
eer and the indissolubility of marriage, and this bill
which made carriage dissoluble and allowed the divorced
parties to marry. For the sake of peace in the Church
he asked the Government to accept the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was most
happy to et ite that be had been authorised by the notle
lord at the head of the Government to accept the amend-
ment with a qualification that he thought would meet
with the approbation of the committee ; but before stat-
ing it be must call the attention of the committee to the
considerations that bad weighed greatly with the Go-
vernment before final'y bringing before them this propo-
sition. He asked the committee first to consider if they
were or were not about to introduce a qualification that
might prove a snare to those for whose relief it was pro-
posed to be given. If it were found right to give this
relief here, where were they to stop ? It would pervade
the whole services of the church, especially those of
baptism, burial, and the hay sacrament, and lead to
disunion, and those evils in the Church which it was
desirable to prevent, and which he prayed they might
never see. (Hear, hear.) He presumed that the hon.
and learned member bad well considered the effect of
the proposed change, and therefore the Government
were prepared to accede to the amendment in these
words :—" Provided always and be it enacted that no
priest or deac in shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or
censure for refusing to solemnise the marriage of any
person whose adultery or crime has been the ground of
the dissolution of aey marriage." (Hear.) That he
thought wou!d meet the case of a wife and her adulterer.
The Government also proposed to add to the clause
words nempe:liug a rector to give the use of the parish
church to a priest or dean n of the Church of England
willing to solemnise a marriage of parishioners to which
the said rector had objections.
Mr HENLEY approved of the clergy amendment of
the hon. and learned Attorney-General, but he asked f it
more time to enable tbe committee to consider that
part with reference to the use of the parish church.
After some remarks from Sir W. HEATHCO
Mr. WALPOLE said that he did not agree with the
hon. and learned Attorney-General that the relief given
in this case would have hereafter to be granted in
reference to the other services of the church, because
in this case the c'ergy had no additional po er or authc-
nty given to teem, but would only act under the decree
or authority of the new Divorce Court.
After some further discussion, it being near four
o'clock, the Attorney-General gave notice of his amend-
ment for consideration at six o'clock this evening, and
the debate was adjourned.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house
resumed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'cl )ck.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lord' Amendments to the Lancaster and Car-
-li3la and Ing!eton RAilway MU were considered and
agreed to.

MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved that a select committee be
appointed to inspect the Lords Journal relative to the
Mersey Conservancy Bill, which had passel this house.
The right hon. baronet having explained the objects of
the bill and its progress through this house and the House
of Lords up to its being referred to a select committee,
said that the object of the motion was to put an end to
the present bi►l, with a view of introducing another
bill thin session, to be passed through i's various stages
without delay, to give effect to the bill in the House of
Lords, changing the amount of compensation from
750,0001. to 1,500,000/.
Mr. J. EWART seconded the motion,
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,
The motion was agreed to and the committee named.
The Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, the
Probates and Lettere of Administration (Ireland) Bill,
and the Jurisdiction in Siam Bill were read a third
time and passed.
The Cust ,ms and Excise Bill, and the Customs Bill
were considered or amended and agreed to, and ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow,
MERSEY CONSERVANCY AND DOCK BILL.
On bringing np the report of the committee appointed
this morning on this bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he bad intimated to the house
at the morning sitting, in moving for a select commit-
tee to inspect the lords' journals relative to the Mersey
Conservancy Bill, that he would move for a suspension
of the standing orders, for the purpose of re-intro-
ducing the bill' and having it read a first and second
time, in order to have it referred on Wednesday to a
select committee to be appointed by a committee of
selection, and thus enabling petitioners against the bill
to be heard. His desire was to have the bill postponed
till next session, in order to afford all parties an oppur
tunity of adjusting their differences.
The standing orders were then suspended, leave was
given to bring in the bill, and it was read a first and
second time pro forma, and ordered to be referred to a
select committee on Wednesday next, at three o'clock.
SANITARY CONDITION OF THE ARMY.
Mr. FITZROY moved for a copy of the report of the
commissioners appointed to inquire into the regulations
affecting the sanitary condition of the army, the organi-
sation of military hospitals, and the treatment of the sick
and wounded.
Sir J. RAMSDEN hoped the right hon. gentleman
would not press fur this return immediately, as the rs-
port had not been received.
Col. NORTH inquired whether the report would be
laid on the table in the present session.
Sir J. RAMSDEN could not say, as the report had
not yet been made.
MR. F. WARD AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.
Mr. CONINGHAM asked the Vice-President of the
Committee of Council on Education, whether Mr. F.
0. Ward had been correctly reported to have said at the
International Congress at Brussels, in Sept. last, that
the application of the Public Health Act to 200 houses in
England bad diminished the morality by 50 per cent.,
and had in their vicinity quadrupled the fertility of the
soil

Thomas Bnrbridge Marston, dyer, Leicester, September
8 and 22, at half-past ten, at the Nottingham Shirehali.
Harris, official assignee, Nottingham ; Davis, Leicester;
Knight, Birmingham.
Thomas Wilson, railway carriage maker, West Brom-
wich, Aug. 28, and Oct. 9, at ten, at the Birmingham
District Court. Whitmore, officialassignee,Birmingham;
Smith and Burdkin, Sheffield ; Smith, Birmingham.
Joseph Willniott and Jobn Hartley, sawyers ani timber
merchants, Es,ex-street, Kingslund-road, August 29, at
twelve, and Sept. 2, at half past one, at the Coutt of
Bankruptcy. Cannan, official assignee, Aldermanbury ;
Roscoe, King-street, Finsbury.
Robert; Sutton and William Haywood, booksellers,
Liverpool, Sept. 8, and 30, at eleven, at the Liverpool
District Court. Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool ; Pem-
berton, Liverpool.
Hugh Mackay and William Bishton Davies, shipwrights,
Liverpool, Sept. 1 and 21, at eleven, at the Liverpool Dis-
trict Court. Cazanove, official assignee, Liverpool; Dodge,
Liverpool ; Ewer, Liverpool.
John Matthews, statuary, Plymouth, Aug. 31, at ten,
and Oct. 5, at one, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel,
official assinee, Exeter; Elworth, Plymouth.
Joseph Bradbury Robinson. hosier, Macclesfield, Aug.
31, and Sept. 23, at twelve, at the Manchester District
Court. Fraser, official assignee, Manchester ; Parrott,
Colville, and May, Macclesfield.
Hector Melville, cooper, Liverpool, Sept. 8 and 30, at
eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Cazenove, offi-
cial assignee, Liverpool; Blackhurst, Liverpool.
Benjamin Moseley, scythe manufacturer, Bradway,
Derbyshii e, Sept. 5 and 26, at ten, at the Leeds District
Court. Brewin, official assignee, Sheffield,; Ryalls, Shef-
field.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
John Kid I, mathematical instrument maker, Dundee.
Hernulewicz, Main, and Co., iron and wire fence manu-
facturers, Glasgow.
William Thompson, cattle dealer, Drumboy.
Hugh Smith, dyers, Glasgow.
John Lamb, miller, Glasgow.

Mr. W. COWPER said that Mr. Ward was not offi d-
aily connected with the Ikard of Health, but the
zeal and ability with which be had supported sanitary
measures which had preserved the lives of many of his
fellow.countryinen had exposed him to some of the rais•
representations which had been cast on the [l.)ard of
Health. He had a copy of Mr. Ward's speech at Bra,-
&el, and he must say that the misrepresentations of what
he said arose from one part of the speech having been
quoted and nut the other. Mr. Ward aluded only to
a class of houses in places where the air was impure and
the water bad, and his statement was founded on swis-
factory returns reLiting to Croydon, Leicester, Rug'iy,
&c In the other part of his speech be was speaking of
the increased fertiiity caused by sewage irrigation, and
when he said it had bean quadrupled, be was speaking of
what had occurred in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh
and Ayr.

sitbr whether by any rnean4 as oht;Tition to maintain,
wife itea,ifig, litigation c‘ailci Le effected.
?Ir. MA LlN'i when a wormn had provrty why
shouli not d7e baiihaticl lave a t,imilar Vai. e? Why
to (tits, ,if divi,rco Ought shti not to no colopeihd to Wake
a Re'r,tioin(!vt for the twnefit of children?

Lord J. MANNERS said he knew that such a ease
ha•l ari,en, and he hoped the Attoroey-General would
alter the (dance so as; to meet suca a ca,e.

Mr. BUTT' said the case just aLuded to was pro-
vided for in the 421 clause ; but the case put by Mr.
Henley was not provided for. de had given notice of
his intention to move au amendment, to the ,ff,:ct that
in the case where an innocent wife obtained a divorce,
the Court shou'd have the power to award her a main-
tenance from the linsband',.; property. If that was the
intentio❑ of the clause the words did not properly ex-
press that intention, and if that was not the intention of
the clause, he proposed to take the opinion of the com-
mittee on the point which he hal submitted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would take
the matter into consideration.
The amendment was nut pressed, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 31,

Mr. PULLER said that it made an important alte-
ration in the law of England, for whereas up to this time
adultery had not been treated as a crime, this bill pro-
posed to abolish actions of crim. can., and give the
power of imposing on the adulterer a fine with c ,etc.
The question f.,r the c irninittee to decide was, whether a
fine un the adulterer was sufficient, leaving the husband
or wife untouched. If the committee should think
proper to make the adulttrer punishable by imprison-
ment, it would be Tight to do so whether the proceeding
should befor diesolation of marriageor judicial separation.
He proposed to amend the clause, so as to make it run
thus :—" Whenever on any petition for desolation of
marriage the adultery shall have been establist,ei, it shall
be lawful for the oourt to order the respondent and also
the co-re-pondeut, it any, to be punished by fine or im-
prisonment, or by fine and imprisonment as if on convic-
tion for a misdemeanor." Previous to putting that amend-
ment, however, be proposed in a previous line of the
dance to solagtitute the word on" for the word "in."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL sai I the question was
whether it should be competent to the court to impose
on the adulterer a pecuniary penalty, to be applied for
tee benefit of the husband and children of the marriage,
or to make a provision for the unfortunate wife, eau
whether the adulterer-should be criminally punished.
He would not enter at any length into the question, be-
cau-e from the time of the Commonwealth all persons
had joined in condemnation of the principle of making
adultery punishable as a crime. Oa three several occa-
sions the principle had been discus.ed in Parliament, in
1781, in 1800, and again in 1312, oa a bill of divorce,
aecompanied with circumstances of singular Wee city, on
an action for the seduction of a married woman by a
clergyman in Devonehire. The opinion of Parliament
was that it would not tend to advance the interests of
morality to treat adultery as a crime, and that to do so
would overstep the limits of criminal jurisdiction. The
Government intended to re-iet any attempt to make
adultery the subject of criminal punishment, and he
trusted the committee would negative the ameedinent.
Lord J. MANNERS believed the universal testimony
of history to be against the opinions of the Attorney-
General. The Homilies contained a table of the different
laws in which the crime of adultery was set down as a
grave offence and punished as such. It was so treated
by Mae Jewe the Egyptians; the Arabs, the inhabitants
of the north of Germany and several other countries, and
in France both the guilty parties were liable to imprison-
ment. The bill might be characterised as a bill for the
encouragement and reward of the commission of
the crime of adultery, for it declined making the act an
offence against social order, it allowed parties to marry
again, and it imposed a pecuniary flue, which, once
paid, would enable the adulterer to enjoy the fruits of
his crime. Tice effect of tto bill, without some such
amendmeut as th,t now proposed, weuld be to encour-
age and not to disoeurage the ailtrterer. A great deal
had been said of the R:,fortnatio Legutn. Was it true

that Cranmer and his associates took the same view as
the Attorney-General, treating the mime merely as a
private injury I The Reformatio Leguin condemned the
adulterer or adulteress to perpirmal banishment or irn•
prisonment. Tne bll treated this great crime with
favour and enciiragement unknown in the records of
the history of any other country. How would it operate
on different classes of the community f Tile wealthy man
amid pay a fine. The poor man would be unable to do
so, and would, have to go to prison. The young and
wealthy seduces would be told—" Pay your money—aed
then yon will be absolved, and may marry whom you
please." The poor man would be told, " You must go to
prison, not; because you have committed an offenoe, but
because you have not the means to condone it." And
yet this bill professed to place the rich and the poor on
an equality. It, however, cunpletely failed in doing so,
and wan a mere mockery of justice. The opinion of Lord
Lyndhurst and other eminent men was in favour of treat-
ing the offence as a crime, and he trusted the committee
would take the same view of the subject, and agree to
the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire.
Mr. I. BUTT said tbe committee would involve
themselves in considerable difficulty if on the present
clause they discussed the question whether adultery was
to be made a criminal offence. It would be an unprece-
dented thing in English law, on a civil proceeding, to
convict and punish a man for an offence of that kind.
What might be the consequence of carrying the amend-
ment of the hon. gentleman I. Why, a man, not know-
kg that he had committed an act of adultery, migbt he
visited with fine and imprisonment. Toe climes in-
volved another point, and that was an inefficient sub-
stitute for the ile.;ion of cries. con. because a remedy would
be given only to those parties who had the means of pro-
ceeding for a divorce, and the action, which .was the pro-
tection of the poor man's home, would be taken away.
It was absurd to make the punishment of a criminal of-
fence dependant on the accident of resort to other pro-
ceedings. It would set a bad example to the people to
say " the adulterer ought to be punished with imprison-
ment, but there is a shield round him, and he cannot be
so punished unless a suit for divorce be 'instituted." He
trusted the committee would not on the present clause be
drawn into a discussion as to the propriety of making
adultery a criminal offence. If the question was to be
entertained lot it be raised on a separats and distinct
clause, and then it could be fairly discussed,
Mr. WrilfAHON observed that they were going to as-
similate the law of this country to that of otheecountries.
In Scotland, by the old law, adultery was a capital of-
fence, and simple adulter' was treated as a misdemea
nour. In Francs and the United States it was punish-
able by fine and imprisonment. In the year 1300 a bill
passed the Lords waking adultery punishable as a mis-
demeanour. It was a doubtfal point at the present mo-
ment whether adultery was not an indiotat to offer.ce.
Mr. WIGRAM suggested that it would be better to
Ist "in" stand, and moved to insert some words that
would raise the question. It was not well to take a divi-
sion as to whether a word in a clause should be " in" or

r

AQUATICS.

LONDON UNITY ROWING CLUB.

A very spiri'ed four-oared cutter race amongst the
members of the a ove club took place yesterday after•
noon from Barnet-bride to Putney, for five silver tan-
kards for the first boat, and fivo other pieces of plate for
the second, the whole generously presented by Mr. C.
Morto,., the proprietor of Canterbury Hall, at which
tavern the club bolds its meetings. The weather wag
fine, and the attendance of spectators considerable.

4C on.ft

Mr. HENLEY thought they ought not to impose a
fine unless they constituted adultery a crime. The At-
torney-General had given notice of au amendment that
the fine be paid to the husband. If this were to be as
compensation, he did not see why a jury should not settle
it instead of the judge.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked that by
dividing on the words "in" or "on" they were deter-
mining whether a clause should be inserted tusking adul-
tery punishable by flue and imprisonment. If they were
to have a fine he preferred that it should be ree,eased by a
jury rather than by a judge, and that it should be paid
to the husband, or applied as a provision for the wife, or
as a maintenance for the children. Bat at present thEy
were merely discussing the question whether adultery
should be punishable as a crime or nut.
Mr. MALINS asked how hon. members who came in
to vote when the bell rang, and who had not heard the
discussion, were to know how to vote when the question
put was whether the word' should should be "in" or
" on"t
The amendment was then withdrawn,
Mr. BUTT moved to omit the words " to impose
upon the adulterer a fine and."
The AT f 0 RN EY-G ENE RAL agreed, and the clause
was altered accordingly.

_
Black
Mr. G. Hurst I Mr. E. Tuttle
Mr. C. Boden Mr. C. Jackson
T. Toritkins, Cox4wain.

Yenom
Mr. R. Jones 1 Mr %). Burrows
Mr. T. Day Mr. H. Dainton
T. Sheppard, Coxiwain.

Blue..

Mr. W. Hazlewood Mr. W. Mills, sen.l
f Mr. J. Amor Mr. F KMEbt
R. Miller, Coxswain.

White 0
Mr. J. Benny Mr. W. Gobly i
Mr. F. Cook Mr. C. Gardiuer
R. Bassan, Coxmain.

Red
Mr. G. Watson Mr. T. Selby
I
Mr. T. Squires Mr. R. Bennet
B. Green, Coxswain.
Mr. Morton was umpire. A. very fine sta t was
effected, which was succeeded by the whole of the boats
remaining nearly oar and oar fur a quarter of a mile at a
fine pace, the winners then gradually drew slightly in ad,
wvice, followed by Yellow, between whom and Blue there
was a most gallant race for second [lice. B!ack kept the
lead and won by half a duzin len.eths ; there was' not
half that distance between the second and third.

Lord J. MANNERS then proposed to insert the
words, " that the adulterer be punished by flue and im-
prisonment. or by flue or imprisonment."
Mr. BUT r said this raised the question in the most
inconvenient form. He could not bring himself to agree
that a person should be.punished as a criminal on these
proceedings. He did not think criminal punishment
should be inflicted unless there was a conviction by a
jury.

INDIA.—A coloured Map of India will be presented
gratis with the Dispatch of Sunday next, Aug: 23. This
Map„ measuring 17 inches by 12, will form a part of the
forthcoming Atlas anuounced to be is,ued Grati4, and to
commence on October 4. Many thousands of pounds
will be expended in pro:iucing this truly invaluable work,
which, completed, will be found the most comprehensive
an•l general'y useful, in fact, the best Atlas ever pub-
lished. The " Dispatch. Atlas" may be ordered of any
BookAtller or New agent in the Kingdom ; or at tte
Offide, 139, Fleet-street.

WIGRAAT should vote for the amendment.
There should b• some mode of punishment, and he saw
no better mode of doing it than by imprisonment
Sir G. GREYsaid if they determined to punish adultery
as a crime, they ought to let the person to be punished
have the ordinary advantages which persons bad when
charged with criminal offences.

Sirr W. HEiTHCOTE supported the amendment.
Mr. PULLER said there wss this objection:to making
adultery a criminal offence—it would give any discarded
servant power to drag parties before the court for matters
which had long since been condoned. If the amendment
were agreed to, the accused party would have every
advantage which he would enjoy if tried upon an indiut-
ment. He would have a trial by jury ; and he would
have the charges against hint clearly stated in the peti-
tion. The amendment did,n)t go so far as he could wish,
or so far as he hoped the committee wouki yet consent
to go ; but he should give it his support.
Mr. LIEGON reminded the committee that one of the
principal ohjects of the b►ll was to substitute one inquiry
for the three which at present exists. But that object
would be defeated if there must be a criminal trial as
well as the inquiry before the court.
Mr. BUTT said the inquiry necessary for the purposes
of a divorce was by no means the same as that required
before they could punish a roan for adultery. In the lat-
ter case they must prove that the defendant knew that
his paramour was a married woman ; whereas no snob
point arose with regard to the simple question whether
there should be a divorce.

BIRTHS.
OF A $Oll.
On the 16th inst., at 40, Paul'a-road, Camden-square
Mrs. Henry Philp.
On the 17th inst., at 7, Alfred-place, North Brixtong
the wife of Mr. A. Rosenthal!.

.
OF A nevenrss.
On the 17th inst., at 8, Westbourne-terrace north, the
Captainwiofenotfhe7th inAista. tr wvs.idmore-hill, Bromley, Kent, the
wife of W. T. Hillyer, Esq.

MARRIED,
At St. George's, Hanover-square, Lonis Augustus
biCaptain R. N., to Mrs. Nicholson, of Lin
..wood Esq.,al ..
,Lincolashire.
6.2 On the 15th inst., at Han well Church, Mr. G. liumford,
of Bathurst-street, Hyde-park-gardens, to Sarah, youngest
hdoauugseh,teHrill'ingtdhoen.late George Daniell, Esq., of Colham-

On the 1% inst., at BittesDwell-house, Lutterworth,
Thomas Belgrase, Esq. Commander R.N.
On the 17th inst , at 110, Wigmore-street, Mr. John D*
Coati, aged 77.
On the 16th inst., George Douglas Dods, staff surgeon
in her Majesty's Forces, aged 49.
On the i6th inst., at 4, Albion-street, Hyde-park, Thos.
Freckleton, Esq., of Great Valley, Kandy, Ceylon, age( t
33.

Mr. HENLEY objected to the amendment. They
ought first to settle whether adultery was t be treated
as a crime. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Puller) talked of
the hardship of allowing a Fervant to commence a prose-
cution for matters which had been condoned; but did ~ot
that show that adultery was a private wrong? It was not
competent to a person to make up a public offence.
Lord J. MANNERS observed that in France aryl
other countries where adultery was punished by flue and
imprisonment, no suit cluld be commenced except by
the injured party.
Mr. ADAMS should vote against the amendment, but
he wished it to be understool that he was not oppo,e(s
to the treatment of adultery as a punishable offence. He
might remind the committee that the defendant would
not have the advantage of the previous inquiry before

On the 12th inst.. at St. Alban's, the Rev. Win. Mogg
80we0,,D.D., late vicar of Shipton Bellinger, aged 93.
On the 15th inst. Mr. Peter Kruse, of Sloane-street ,
Chelqsa, formerly of Swan-wharf, aged 72.
On the 15th inst., at 6, High-street, Deptford, Mr. B.
Buchanan Martin, formerly of H.M. Duckyard, Deptford
aged 87.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG
of No, 112, Strand, Printer, at Ths Sun Office, No
112, Su-ad, in the freeinot cf the Savoy, in the count),
of Middleacx, Tuosdray, August 18, 1857.

- • • -- - , es.
the grand jury, which was enjoyed by persons accused calculate. In the majority of the divoree eases Oa
Of the most trivial offences. (f-Teer, hear.) came before the House of Lords it had been shown tha
Tae amendment was then negatived. ' the adultery had been cementted to fac,litate ti.,e divorce.
Mr. allaMAtiON thought the clause was now useless, They were l-aving the lessons of eziperience to enter
the question of costs bring provided for in clause 48. , upon the field of experinasut, and it was the duty of
Nee, rthelese the clause was agreed to. those who recommi nded that course to prove that it
On clause 32, "cast idy of children," would not be attentied with those evils which he had
Ler I LOVAINE (for Mr. Deurnmena) moved to ic- , pointed nut. The law bad never yet gone so far as to
sert, instead of the Court of Chancery," at the end of I declare that the guilty perry should he at liberty te
the clause, " the permit promoting the suit, if such parent ; marry again—though in enabling the innocent- perty to
shall have fowl free fr to cruelty or criminality. I remarry, that result had followed. There were various
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the amene- modes of meeting the oljection to which this clause was'
meet. Of course tee Court of Chancery would respect I open, and the way he proposed to meet it was, to pro-
the rights of the innocent parent, where that parent was vide that the dissolution of the marriage should not
able to discharge the duties of guardian. enable the guilty porties to marry retain. He moved, in
The amendment was negatived. the first instance, the amendment of which his right hen
Mr. BUTT moved an amendment providing alimony and learned friend the member for the University of
pendente lite, if the suit was one of divorce, in the same Dublin, who was not present, had given notice, viz.,
manner as if it was for a judicial separation, in line 15, leave out "the respective parties thereto,"
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would consider the and insert, " the party on whose petition the mar
subject ; and riage shall have been dissolved," and leave out
The clamor was agreed to. "as if the," and the whole of line 16, in order
On clause 43'—" Questions of fact may be tried before that the dissolution of marriage might take its
the court." course, as it did at present, without directly sane-
Mr. M•VIAHON moved the following proviso— taming the re-marriage of the guilty parties ; but be
a Provided also that, unless the court shall otherwise proposed afterwards to submit his own amendment—
order, the contested fact shall be tried in the county leave out "the respective parties," &c,, to the end a a
where the adultery is alleged to have been committed.' the clause, and insert "the party on whose petition the
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that that would marriage shall have been dissolved to marry again, but
generally be the case ; but it would be convenient in no sentence or decree of dissolution of marriage proa
some instances to try the cause in London or Middlesex. flounced or made under the authority of this act, shall
After some cinversation, enable the party, by reason of whose adultery or other
Mr, M'MAHON withdrew his amendment, and the offence the marriage shall have been dissolve], to marry
clause was agreed to. again"
Clauses 34 to 38 were agreed to. air G. GREY looking at the amendment as a whole,
Oa clause 39, thought it would be very inexpedient to adopt it. The
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, in answer to bill would not enable the guilty party to marry again,
questions, that he proposed to add words to meet the any more than the existing state of the law did. At
case of parties residing out of the jurisdiction, and to present, though it was not declared, yet by giving the
give the court the same pOwer as was conferred by any party in whose favour the divorce was granted that
statute on the Court of Chancery. right, the gully party practically was enabled to exer-
The clause as amended was agreed to. case it also. Take the case of a woman who had the
On clause 40, misfortune to commit a breach of the marriage vow at
Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved the omission of the an early period of life. Was she never to have an op-
words exempting a petitioner from answering any goes- portunity for penitence or contrition, and, her husband
tion which might tend to show that be had been guilty having married again, was she to be compelled to lead
of adultery. for the remainder of her existence a life, as it had been
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the last law of termed, of " degraded celibacy I" (Hear, hear.) That
evidence in these cases was that the husband and the would, in fact, be the result of adopting what was pro-
vide should not be. examined aeainst each other. The posed.
words in the clause were not founded on the common Mr. S. ESTCOURT said the great advantage of
law principle—that a party could not be examined to ad ipting the amendment of the right hon. gentleman
criminate himself. (alr. Napier) was, that it would leave the law recisely*
Sir W. HE A.TEICOTE said the clause gave the power as it stood at present. He believed they would be
to examine the parties on all points but one, and that wrong if they attempted to make this bill a reflection of
the most material. Ose divine law. No doubt it became them to bear that -
Mr. AYRTON said the main object of the clause was law in their conscience,. ; but they must remember that
to get rid of the documentary examinations in the ecale- they were then exercising their legislative functions with
eiastical courts. iegard to a civil right. (Hear, hear.) On the one hand,'
Mr. MaMAHON supported the amendment. they ought not to giie tie guilty parties a right to claim
Mr. BUTT said they had no right to put to a witness religious sanctions to a second marriage ; but, on the
questions which held out the strongest possible tempts. other, it did not become them to take away from a
tion to commit perjury, guilty woman a locus penitential.
Mr. LOCKE (Southwark) said that no man was bound Mr. GRIFFITH observed that the effect of prohibit-
to answer a question which would subject him to eccle- ing an adulteress from contracting a second marriage
siastical censure.
woula be, in many cases, to protect the seducer rgainst
Mr. HENLEY doubted whether the exemption went the natural! consequences of his own act, and to numbers
far enough. It a man were asked whether he had been such a prohibition would be very agreeable.
guilty if bigamy, was he to be required to answer that ? The committee then divided—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained the precise For the amendment
effect of the clause, which was only to give the new Against it
court the power of examining parties in the same way Majority —6O
as the House of Lords now examined a petitioner. At Mr. GLADSTONE said his amendment stood next,
the same time it was necessary to put a limit to the clues- and he trusted he should not he expected to move it
teens that might be asked. The case of bigamy was so rare, then, as he should deem it necessary to trouble the corn-
and necessarily included adulery, that no special execup. nate° with a statement of some length.
tion as to answering on that point was required Lord PALMERSTON thought the request of the
The amendment was negatived, and the clause was right hon. gentleman perfectly reasonable.
agreed co. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and olr
Clause 41 was agreed to, tainted leave to sit again this day at 12.
Several verbal amendments were made in clause 42, TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL.
which was then :weal to, Mr. WALPOLE moved that the house resolve itself
On clause 43, which refers to the mode of taking evi- into committee on this bill.
dance, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL" objected to the mo•
Mr. BUTT suggested whether it would not be better tine, on the ground that the house
had not sufficient
to omit this clause. As be understood the 'clause, one time to consider it, and stated that it was his intention
of the parties could now give evidence on affidavit, and to introduce a comprehensive measure on the subject
after having does) so, the other party could require the next session. .
person making the affidavit to he brought up to London, Mr. WALPOLE consented to the withdrawal of the
fee the purpose of being orals), exa 'tined, and the whole bill, and the order was diseharged
mater weull have to be gone over again. JUDGMENTS BILL.
Mr. GL DaTONE said before the clause passed, he This bill was committed pro forma.should like to know from his bon, and learned friend the BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND)
Attorney-General whether the hon. and learned member BILL.
for Youghal accurately represented the effect of the The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered
clause. and agreed. to.
Tne ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the bill CROWDED DWELLINGS PREVENTION BILL.
stood there were some matters which must be tried by a On the question that the bid be committed,
jury. There were others which the judge might send to Mr. RIDLEY teought such an important bill ought
be tried by a jury. But there were many matters with not to be pressed forward at that late period of thessea'
regard to which it might be convenient to have the evi- sion, and said that unless the right hon. gentleman (air.
deuce tak n by affidavit. But if the opposing party Cowper) consented to withdraw it he should move that
desired to have the benefit of a viva voce examination, it be committed that day three months.
even alter the evidence so given on affidavit, it would be Mr. HENLEY trusted the bill would be withdrawn,
competent for that party to require the evidence to be as lie considered it equally objectionable and unintel'
given orally. In many cases that would be the most hapoe.
convenient mode of proceeding, Mr. KINNAIRD defended the bill and bad nO beg-
Mr. Burr said that the fact .off the adultery would ,
not be tried bye jury, unless either of the respondents de- ration in declaring that if the whole of the metropolis
could be polled the great majority would be found
mantled it, and they would have that power even after favourable to the measure.
the petitionnr had verified his case by affidavit, and been Lord V. TEMPEST opposed the bill, on the ground
cross-examined in court. that it was obscure and despotic. They might almost
Mr. GLADSTONE wanted to know whether both suppose that it came from the Tuileries. (Rear.)
processes of affidavit and examination and trial by jury
Toe house then divided on the motion for going into
could be applied to the same case I committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said any person Far the motion
familiar with the course of procedure would know that Against it
the court would not :grant the right of cross-examining Lord V. TEUPEST said he must resist going into
unless the party demanding it declared he did not intend committee at that hour. He would therefore move that
to apply foria trial before a jury.- the denate be adjourned.
Mr. BUTT thought it would be better to strike out Mr. CO WPE ft was willing to go into committee and
the clause altogether,
report progress. .
A division was then called for, but none took place, Mr. COX hoped the house would not go into 0301'
and the clause as amended was agreed to. tnittee at that hour.
Clauses 44, 45, 46, 47, were also agreed to. Mr. HENLEY humorously expressed his hope that
On clause 48,
the bill would be made to apply to Scotland, and that
Mr. adaMA HON considered that in all cases the costs they should not be allowed there to slee more than
should follow the event, and move Ito insert the words, " three in a bed." (Great laughter.) p
"That when any contested matter shall be tried by a Lord V. TEMPEST having withdrawn his motion for
jury the costs shall abide the result of the verdict, unless the 'adjournment, the bill passed through committee pro
that verdict be afterwards set aside." forma.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not assent to Some returns were ordered, and the house adjourned
the amendment. The matter tried before the-jury might at two o'clock.
, be only a part of the subject in issue bet veen the parties.
The clause was t*:en agreed to.
Clause 49 was also agreed to.
Clau-e 50, court to make rules and orders.
Mr. WIGRANI moved to add wor fs to enable the
court t s provide for hearing certain causes in private.
Mr. MALINS did not think the words necessary, as
every court bad the power of hearing causes in private:
it was the constant pr mace of the Court of Chancery to
do so. He a-as unwilling to insert words which would
sanction a practice which was open to many objections.
Mr. WIGR Mal said the 43rd clause provided that
all evidence shot ad be taken in open court, and therefore
this proviso was necessary. He would not object to
add the words " with the consent of the parties."
Lora LOVAINE supported the amendment.
The committee divided.
For the amendment 23
Against
Mr. HENLEY proposed to strike out the whole of
tbe section after the word "save" in the 21st line. His
object in doing this was to leave open to the court the
framing of it rules of procedure,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hal not the least ob•
jection to give up the words.
The amendment was agreed to and the clause passed.
Oa clause 51,
Mr. MALINS objected to the appeal court number-
ing within its members the judge against whose decision
the appeal went.
The clause was agreed to. Oa clause 52,
Mr. WALPOLE objected to the appeal in these
cases being limited to questions of law. In matters of
divorce questions of faot were far more likely to arise
than questions of law, and inas:nuch as all courts were
liable to error, he trusted that something would be dene
to meet this difficulty. Ile moved to omit words effect-
ing this object.
Mr. BOVILL said that it had been latterly a well
known part of English jurisprudence to allow an ap-
peal on maters of law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL quite went with the
right hon. gentleman, and was perfectly reidy to assent
to his amendment. He had indeed been prepared to call
she attention of the committee to the matter had he not
been so well anticipated.
The amendment and the clause were agreed to.
On clause 53,
Mr. ROLT said that upon this cl use the potency of
the bill for good or evil mu-t depend. He could not.
agree with the view which hal been stated, that this bill
was but to create a new court for the administration of
the fie believed that its object was to
sanctityain-
taizhistineglaw. m
of the marriage vow in the minds -of
many, yet giving relief to the fa iv, in whose case the
sanctityany bloi that vow hal been violated. With that prin-
ciple he did not think that this clause was in consonance.
The result was that the offence of adultery, which was
an offence by the laws of the country, was to be re-
warded by the liberty to marry again, In cases where
incompatibility of temper rendered the marriage life un-
happy there was no remedy ; but if one or other of the
parties committed adultery, then divorce was obtainable.
The bill, therefore, would operate as a direct temptation
to the commission of adultery. It might be said that you
could scarcely adopt any legalttion which should be free
from anomalies. That was true, but let them not carry
anomalies further than was necessary. No doubt it was
an anomaly that in granting relief by divorce to the in-
nocent party they necessarily granted relief to the guilty
party also. But let them not reward the guilty party by
giving the privilege of remarriage because of tee guilt.
They eh -tad take into account the effect which such a
law would have upon the many who diii not tall within
its scope. It was the duty of the legislature to pro-.Lct
the man, and not to sacrifice them to the fewwno fell
into error. It might be well to consider what was the
law in other countries as well as in our own country up
was distinct,ac
for Cambridge
,l had e
to tbe pre-ent time. It bad never yet been wbieitten in
wa
the law of any country that divorce given,
that
reasont theadulterer
of adultery.
tiho In France
marry
His hon. friend the member an
amendment embracing that principle which he „hhhe
should no rj'cet
withhe iaw
the ac co
content to take as a compromise, though his own•
amendment went further. In Scott rid it was tee same,
wh-le in Swedes the adulterer could, not marry again
except with the consent of the spouse and by the royal
author'ty ; and then as regarded our own country, he
contended that special acts of parliament, under which
a clearly
showed
h that tthher igt ye
nteor ml
laarwr ydid notan rweaasiggniisvee)t''he prin-
ciple of the remarriage of a man or woman divorced for
the crime 01 adultery, The probable result of grantas
this license, and extending it to the middle class would
be to sap and weaken the notions of fidelity in the con-
jugal relations to. an extent that it was anposeible to