The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-05 00:00:00

were thEn named, and empowered to proceed to business
orthwith.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.)
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CNUSES BILL.

Oa the report of t'ao amendments on this bill being
read,
Lord BROUGHAM rose to express the strong objec-
tion he felt to c,rtain omissions in the bill to which
generally be entirely agreed. He bad another ohjeotion,
and that was to what hail been called the amendments
made in committee on the bill. He would venture to
say that never in the course of his legi6l3tive experience
was the word amendment more inapplicable than in this
instance, inasmuch as a defect was retained in the mea-
sure which he had hoped to see removed. What was
one of the great objections to the action of crim. con.,
agreed to on all sides, or on nearly all sides ? One of
the greatest, and in his opinion the greatest, objection to
that action was the grievous and crying injustice which
was done in that action to the unhappy wife of the party
who brought the action. An instance bad occurred,'
which he believed had been mentioned before, where an
action for crim. con. had been brought and compromised
by the payment of a trifing sum to the husband. All the
husband wanted was to-get rid of his wife, so be charged
her with adultery ; but when he get before the Ecclesi-
astical Court it was proved beyond all doubt that the
gn It of the wife was an impossibility, for the marriage
had never been censummated, either by the husband or
jsaid the noble lord) or by any other man. (Laughter.)
To nearly, though not quite, the same degree, his objec-
tions would also apply to the proceedings authorised by
the bill for obtaining a divorce because the adulterer was
made no party.

The FORD CHANCELLOR said it was proposed to
make both the wife and the adulterer parties to the suit.
Lord BROUGHAM said in that case he must beg
his noble and learned friend's pardon. He woad,
therefore, proceed at once to the very strong objections
he entertained against what bad been call the amend-
ments to the bill. He found that a new species of
divorce altogether had been invented, but there was
no necessity for their lordships to patent it, for no
other slate or country would ever desire to pirate
the invention. It was a divorce that was neither a
menses et tleoro nor a vinculo matrimonii, but yet re-
tained all the defects of both those systems. With
respect
.to one of the parties, it was a complete
divorce—the vinculum was dissolved, and the husband
might marry again. But with respect to the other
party—the wife, it was only half a divorce, and she
could not marry again. It left her not altogether free, nor
yet altogether fettered. She was doomed to the alteroa-
tive of prostitution or want, of sinning or starving, of
the streets or the workheuse. With all that respect
which it was natural for him to feel towards tbeir lord•
ships, and with every desire to admire originality of con-
ception, he felt he should be guilty of some of the in-
consistencies which characterised that measure, and
some of the hypocrisy that it encoutaged, were he to
express any admiration whatever for their Lrdships' very
original invention, Even setting all justice and morality
aside—and it was no light matter to do that in an assem-
bly presided over by his noble and learned friend the
Lord Chancellor, and adorned by the heads of the church
—but even setting justice and morality aside, what was
to be gaiged by the present measure Its professed ob•
ject was to prevent adultery, but did it show Oat it
would have any such tendency, or anything like it Did
it not tend to encourage the offence it was directed
igainst ? It went upon the assumption that in the ma-
roity of cases the woman and not the man was to be
taken as the principal offender; but a long experience of
such cases went to show most unquestionably that it was
nearly always the man and rot the woman who was the
most guilty. Yet that bill eecsuraged the man to per-
severe in his criminality ty giving him an act of Parlia-
ment guarantee against the consequences of his crime,
by preventing him from marrying the woman. Then
with regard to the woman, what did the bill do for her ?
The fear of loss of station in lite, and the deprivation
of the chil lren, might be taken in most cases to be suffi-
cient incentives to virtue in a wife. But take one of
the worst cases where a woman bad neither self-respect
nor natural affection, he believed the fear of loss of posi-
tion would at ad events be a greater restriction than an
act of Par:iament to prevent her , marrying, not merely
the adulterer, but any other person whomsoever. T,e
strength of female attachments was well known, and it
was no uncommon thing in these cases for the adultery
to be committed by parties who could not possibly marry.
Indeed, 'in the very next divorce case that would conic
before their lordehips, the seducer was a married man,
and the woman a wife and a mother. The more he looked
into it, the more he felt convinced that a greater blot
upon the legislation of this kingdom had never been at-
tempted than by the se-called amendments that had been
mace in committee upon that new species of divorce.
Lord REDESDALE said the notle and learned lord
who last spoke had omitted to allude to the grounds
upon which the principal amendment was supported by
those who brought it forward. The Scripture said
" Whoso marrieth a woman that is divorced, commit-
teth adultery," and the b.ll in its original
shape ap-
peared to be opposed to the la,/ of God.
Lord BROUGHAM said he was perfectly aware that
that suggestion had been given as the reason, and he bad
recently read a work by an eminent barrister, in which
the language of Scripture was twisted about until it ap-
p2ared to bear that meaning. But those parties all ar-
gued as though St. Mark and St. Luke had not given a
very dill, rent version of the words. At all events, the
objection came a century and a half too late, for their
lordships had been granting divorces of that kind by a
different mode for the last 150 years.
Lord RE D ESD said St. Matthew gave the words
with great distinctness as coming from the lips of the
holy Saviour himself, and he (Lord Radesdr le) could not
think that a practice of 150 years was sufficient to jus-
tify opposition to the Word of God.
The Esil of DONOUGEIMORE said he had voted
fur the atnndment because he considered that marriage
was a contract, and thet it one party broke that con-
tract, the other should have a remedy, but he did not
think it right that the party committing the offence
should profit by Lis crime.

,
The report tnen bringlit up and agreed to.
AD'YIINISTI?ATION OF OATHS TO WITNESSES.
The report of the select coairnitteo on this sutject hav-
in2. been t.roui:tht up,
bird CAMPBELL moved a resolution, that select
committees should in future examine witnesses without,
their having been previously sworn, and that in com-
mittees on private bills the witnesses should he examined
on oath, exc-pt only in cases whore it might other wi,e
be ordered by the house. His lordship said that the se-
lect commit ee had approved and recommended that
course.

The resolution wag agreed to, after which their lord.
•hips adjourned at 25 minutes after six o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMAIONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
VOTING PA PERS.
Lord :II.:: CECIL moved fur a select committee to
inquire into the expediency of collecting the votes at
elections in counties and universities by way of
voting papers. The noble lord entered at some
length into the question, and urged that it would
have the effect of preventing bribery and corruption,
and be the means of dispensing with the ballot.; It
would also have the effect of increasing the number of
votes at elections, because a large number who did not
vote under the present system would by the mode be
proposed. It had been tried with reference to munici-
pal el,ctions, and the election of Beards of Guardians,
and was found to work well. Is wool 1 also meet many
of the objections of the noble lord the member for Middle-
sex relative to the expense of bringing voters to the poll
Mr. M'CULLA.GH opposed the motion, becaue,
from the advanced state of the sesion, it would be im-
possible for a committee to investigate properly the pro.
posed alteration, which struck at the root of our elec-
toral system. The present manly system of voting was
as bold as the constitution- of the house itself, and to
that was opposed tv:hitt he might term an "effeminate"
system, because under it at present women were al-
lowed to vote for certain officers. The dill rence in the
principles in use and proposed was this, that the law

was to give the franchise originally, and it now carried
out in practice the spirit and theory of the constitution
Any man once placed on the registry could not be
divested of his right by any person, and it was his own
fault if he did not exercise it. He considered there were
five distinct contingencies to this mode of election, by
which the acts of other pereons, without privity cr com-
plicity of the voter, might prevent his ex-rcising his right
to vote at all. Toe point was that it was possible the
voting papers might not be delivered to the voter at all,
and he instanced the case of Swansea and Banbury,
where the elections of guardians wero declared null and
void from that circumstance. Another point was that
of falsifying or forging the papers, which be
illustrated by a circumstance of that kind that
occurred in 1855 in the borough of Lambeth,
where the parties were punished by criminal
proceedings. There was the case of an indictment
against five agents at West Bromwich, who were found
guilty of tampering with voting papers, and were sen-
tenced "to three months imprisonment, and when the
therelaw Board Inspector went down and investigated
matter, he found that 342 voting pipers had been
tampered With, and the majority of them found for-
riurisetsr.ateThe
honourable gentleman further proceeded t
on
the his argument by showing the abuse of power
part of collectors of these papers in elections for
boards of guardians, and he proceeded to remark on the
faults and irregularities attending these papers at such
elections, which showed the system was a bad one, and
would not work, se
-the elections had been
declared void in coney
by the Poor Law
/Lard.: (Hear, bear.) Icifeernee
general remarks
he said that the Government ought some
gof
the
eot to consult the
interest'of the few against that
who voted
under the present system. Tills was coun3.'dlyied by many
as the half..vay hou-o to the Ballot, tho'l
by the noble lord, but he differed f P 8
.repudiated
"at 111 m, and he
moved the previous question.
Lord STANLEY thought that the noble lord (Lord
R. Cecil) bad made a mistake in mixing upthe two
elections
of counties add universities. If the prope,ed alteration had
been confined to universities he should have supported
the motion, but he could notin counties, because the men.
surd wonl I have the effect of either going tco far or not
iar enough for such constituenciee.
Sir G. GREY opposed the motion for inquiry on the
ground that it was purely one of those questions which
the house could not devolve on any committee, but must
decidelor itself.
Mr. H. BERKELEY compared the proposal to a
mere puddle, as compared with the whole sea of reform
to which he would lead them in the ballot.
Lord J. MANNERS recommended his noble friend
to withdraw his motion,•a suggestion to which
L ird R. CECIL acceded, and the motion was with-
drawn; intimating that at some future period he would
propose a bill on the sut.ject.
GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS.
Mr.' WALPOLE brought np the report, observing
that it was impossible that the report could be made be-
fore that day. The members of the general committee

BOARD OF TRADE.
Mr. HORSFALL then rose to move for a select com-
mittee to inquire into the origin, the past and eresent
constitution, and the powers and duties of the Board of
Trade, with a view to its better adaptation to the re-
quirements of the country. He disclaimed being actuated
by any political faction, or intending any reflection on
those who presided at the Board of Trade. He was
happy to say that the Board of Trade was not a sinecure
board. They rather did too much. It was in 1638 the
the board was first constituted, and remodelled by Crom-
well in 1645. In 1660, in the time of Charles 11., ano-
ther constitution of the Board of-Trade took place. It
was divided into two branches, and reunited in 1683.
Further modifications were made in 1691, but it was not
till 1780 that any material alteration was made—when
the entire abolition was moved by Mr. Barber, and the
result of the debate was, that the clause for the entire
aholition of the board was carried by a majority of eight.
The mercantile interests, however, though anxious for its
reform, were not anxious for its abolition. The same
was true at the present day. The mercantile interest was
not anxious for the abolition of the Board of Trade—
they admitted its utilities. He would accept the de-
finition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who the
other evening repudiated all idea of the honorary mem-
bers, and said that the responsible members of the board
were its president and vice-president. The first point
which presented itself was, what were the duties which
the board so constituted had to discharge ? It had been
well said by Mr. Themes that the duties are of a miscel-
laneous character. A part of this duty was to advise the
Treasury on colonial matters, customs, and excise, and to
advise the Foreign-office ors commercial treaties. It had
to supervise orders in council, and to examine every dock
bill, every railway bill for the guidance of Parliament.
Nor was this all. It was a general superintendence of
agriculture, of surveys, museums, registration, water sup-
plies ; and after all this, there was a bill before the house
which might impose upon them other duties. These
ware subjects managed at the Board of Trade, which did
not satisfy the country. The people of this country
would ever contend for the principle of self-government
against that of centralisation. The Local Marine Bill of
the present Minister for the Colonies, for the regulation
of the merchant shipping, had created a perfect tribunal
to examine into shipwrecks. Mr. Cardwell, in his Con-
solidation Bill, by giving the power to two magistrates
had made a mistake ; and the permissive power of the
bill to the Board of Trade to appoint an assessor, had
given great dissatisfaction. The most important cases
had been taken from the local and marine board, and
brought before two stipendiary magistrates, assisted by
a naval officer. Now a naval officer was not a good
judge of such a matter. He had a sufficient number
of men under bis command, all of whom he knew,
while the merchant captain bad perhaps only 25 men,
and could could not weather the gale when the naval offi-
cer could carry the ship through it. The merchant cap-
tains demand, like naval captains, to be tried by their
peers. The Board of Trade, in removing the trial from
a competent to an incompetent tribunal, had created
great dissatisfaction. By the Merchant Shipping Act
captains were bound to give returns of the names of the
owners, the nature of the cargo, and the kind of distress
to which the ship was subject. Besides this, they were
bound by the words. of the ant to give as much other in-
formation as the assessor might think necessary. On the
strength of this the Board of Trade had asked a series
of irrelevant and inquisitorial questions, as, for instance,
if the vessel was insured or not, questions which should
never have been asked. The act required that the in-
formation-obtained should be posted at Lloyd's. But
what captain liked it to be posted at Lloyd's that he bad
lost 50,0001. or 60,0001. by not insuring ? What under-
writer liked to be posted as having lost ZO,OOO/. or
60,0001. by taking an insurance / Some one had pro-
perly said that the best answer to these questions would
be, "Mind your own business, and we will mind ours."
These questions were mo't vexations. Such were some
of the cases of interference. Since he had given notice
of this motion he had had numerous cases submitted to
him in which masters had been hardly dealt with, but
in other cases it appeared that the Board of Trade had
not bees stringent enough, a license in one case having
been granted to a notorious drunkard. Perhaps, how-
ever, that might have arisen from a want of power on
the part of the board. The next point he had to allude
to was the power of the Board of Trade to repert on
local bills, and on this point he strongly objected to the
board being enabled to send reports to committees on
local bills, with a view of prejudging their decision one
way or another. Ho thought that was a principle quite
Inconsistent with the prix ciples of the British constitu
tion. Perhaps he might be allowed to refer to a bill
which was now before the house in reference to the
Birkenhead docks. At the present time vessels were
roost unnecessarily detained at Liverpool, not only to
the irjory of the owners, but also to the National ex•
1 chequer. Both the Board of Trade and the Admiralty
had reported upon that Bill, and while the Board of
Trade had censured the Admiralty with regard to the
present state of proceedings, the Admiralty had been
equally decisive in censuring the Board of Trade. The
next point to which he would advert, was the loss to the
trade of the country from the want of necessary accom-
modation. Some time ago Liverpool had 110 landing
waiters, and although the trade increased GO per cent.
the Board of Customs stuck to that number, and the
consequence was that vessels were frequently obliged to
wait three or four weeks before they could be discharged.
It was not until strong "representations came from Ame-
rica that this system was altered. The American cap-
tains complained that it took them long,r to get their
cargoes discharged than to make the voyage, and the
matter was brought before Sir R. Peel, who was then
Prime Minister. The right hon. baronet promised that
the matter should have his personal consideration, and
in less than six weeks 5G additional landing waiters were
appointed. lie hoped the noble lord at the head of the
Government would give the same assurance, and that he
would so reform and reconstitute the Beard of Trade
that it should be no longer an obstruction to the com-
merce of the country. Then as to the agricultural depart-
ment of the Board of Trade, he had heard that morning
from the Corn Association of Liverpool that the official
returns of grain issued by the Board of Trade were utterly
worthless for any statistical purpose, and that opinion
was confirmed by the President of the Royal Agricultu-
ral Association. The ntxt point to which he would refer
was the supply of guano, in reference to which the Presie
dent of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had stated
that it was a gigantic blunder on the part of Government,
and especially of the Board of Trade. This was a eutject
on which he hell it was the duty of the authorities of
the Board of Trade to advise the Secretary of State tor
the Colonies. Following up this question of guano, he
might state that he had waited with a deputation from
the Liverpool Shipowners' Association at Liverpool upon
the Colonial Secretary, who said he would take into his
consideration the propriety of throwing open the trade.
Certain arrangements were submitted to the right hon.
gentleman, and by him forwarded to the Board of Trade.
In this agreement it was arranged that the trade should
be opened to all parties, and that all parties should be
treated alike. When be forwarded that arrangement he
:eiggested that as no duty was payable on Peruvian
guano the Government should relinquish the small roy-
alty per ton it enjoyed. If that suggestion had been made
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he cou'd understand
eby it should have been rejected, but he could not un-
derstaad why the Board of Trade, whose object it was to
promote and encourage commerce, should return as an
answer their lordships could not entertain the applica-
tion. (Hear.) Still less coal' he understand the grounds
upon which the suggestion was refused, and which was
that any advantage conceded to a single port would be
inconsistent with the wider interests involved, whereas
the suggestion was that the trade should be thrown open
to all parties. (Hear, hear.) Then as to railways, no-
thing could be more proper than that the Board of Trade
should have the power of sending down competent
parties to inspect and report upon them ; but they sent
down incompetent persons ; and in 1849 the Board of
Trade sent down an inspector to report en a line in
Lincolnshire. He said it was insecure, and reported
against it. A long correspondence ensued, to the
great disadvantage of the shareholders. AtJength the
Board of Trade announced that they had reconsidered
their determination, and the line had been used without
any accident up to the present time. Exactly the earns
circumstance happened with regard to a bridge on the
South-Western Railway, between Waterloo and Vaux-
hall. The bon. gentleman complained, on the autho-
ri'y of Mr. G. P. Bidder, in a report dated March, 1856,
that the inspectors sent down to examine and report
upon new lines bad badno experience, and had never had
anything to do with the construction of a single line of
railway. In these and in many other respects he did not
think the Board of Trade, as at present constituted, was
satisfactory to the country, and that a peer and a lawyer
were not exactly fit persons to preside over the commer-
cial interests of the country. (Hear.) He appealed to
the justice of Parliament and to the candour of the noble
lord at the head of the Governtnent to grant the com-
mittee, which as he had already stated was to inquire
into the origin, the past and present constitution, and
the powers and duties of the Board of Trade, with a view
to its better adapttation to the requirements of the
country.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said he had listened with much
surprise to the censures which the hon. gentleman bad
cast upon an important branch of the Government, bay
ing under its care the protection of the commerce of the
country. He appealed to the house who had listened to
the hon. gentleman, whether his speech had not consisted
of details of quarrels amongst his constituents, and that
he had failed to grapple with that large question whether
a great department of the Government should be ar-
raigned before a committee of the House of Commons
with a view to its entire demolition. He would venture
to say that, beginning with those great measures which
Mr. Huskisson instituted to the present time, the Board
of Trade had borne a most conspicuous part in removing
the shackles which for so long a time impeded the pro-
gress of the commerce of the country. He did not ex-
actly understand what the honourable gentleman core.
pained of, but as far as he gathered the object of the
hon. gentleman, it was to introduce into the Board of
Trade men who were most intimately connected with
the commerce of the country. He (Mr. Labouchere)
hell the opinion which had always been entertained by
the house, that no one should have any control in the
Board of Trade wh3 was identified with any branch of
coerce. That principle had always been jealously
P r
et
ihde t aontd t
heßoard
when Mr.of
Trade,T h o Thompson on
soonerw as
wmaaed e
the Vice-
ofap.
poicnotrrunotnaan
bn oyutnhcee d presenttbat
Lord L
he was aosekedede
e whether i n the H o
be
ee.
bad broken off his connection with commerce, and he
immediately replied that he bad. There could be no
objection to a merchant who had
,re left commerce becoming
President of the Board of
undesirable that he should d but it was very
continue
his connection
bwoiathrd. comTmbeercepriwnehlplele
that the trade of the
holding any office at the
country should be managed by merchants was
a retrograde principle, for he Delia/4d that if the manage.