The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1861.

information that he actually had been executed. Then it
was laid to Mr. Gladstone's charge that he did not suffi-
ciently retract, when he found he had been mistaken. But
Mr. Gladstone, in the House of Commons—in the very
place where the charge was made—(hear, hear)—did ex-
pressly state that he had been misinformed, partly by the
inference which he had drawn, and partly by the informa-
tion he had received. He (Lord Brougham) did not happen
to be present in the House of Commons when Mr. Glad-
stone's speech was made. He should always be glad to be
there when so great a speaker, so brilliant and so excellent
an orator, as Mr. Gladstone was
,to be heard. But it so
happened for the last 31 years he had not crossed the
threshold of the House of Commons except twice ; upon
one occasion to hear Mr. Gladstone speak, about a year
ago ; and again the othsr night, to hear his:friend the noble
viscount explain the intentions of the Government with re-
spect to their lordships' amendments of the Bankruptcy
Bill. (A laugh and cheers) It was said to Mr. Gladstone,

CC Why do you not retract ?" He (Lord Brougham) said,
Mr. Gladstone did retract, according to the information he
had received from those who heard him. Then with re-
spect to the book, Mr. Gladstone's statement proceeded
upon documents published by the provisional de facto Go-
vernment of Modena; and the book had now been for up-
wards of twelve months exposed to sale. But it appeared
that there were two persons to whom it was inaccessible.
The Duke of Modena could not by any means obtain a sight
of this book—(hear, and a laugh)—and it also appeared
that the noble marquis could not obtain a sight of it.
Probably they were the only persons who laboured
under this difficulty ; and had not been able to see the book
in question, 'Mr. Gladstone had the authority of the Govern-
ment for the statement; and then, said his noble friend
" How can you tell that these documents are not forgeries ?';
But, said Mr. Gladstone, "How can you tell that they are ?"
Nobody affected to believe they were forgeries ; for anything
that appeared they were authentic ; and therefore Mr. Glad-
stone's defence was complete. But if these papers were in
the Foreign-office there was no doubt they would be forth-
coming, and then their lordships would be able to see them
and discover whether Mr. Gladstone was borne out in his
statement or not. He (Lord Brougham) wished to speak
with all respect of the Duke of Modena, who was in mis-
fortune, but he observed that the duke said in defence that
he had left all his papers behind him, and these papers
would show that he was perfectly clear of the charge. Now
it certainly was a very uncommon course for persons to
take, whether on a throne, or not on a throne, to commit
matters to writing, to manufacture evidence against them-
selvco, and afters,' ox la kayo that ovidenco behind thew
which they had made to convict themselves. What was the
Duke of Modena's defence? " Search my repositories and
you will find no papers to show that I am guilty." But al-
most every criminal on his defence at the Old Bailey might
make the same sort of defence, and make it with perfect
truth. The statement that they had left no papers to crimi-
nate themselves would probably be perfectly true. The
Duke of Modena, if such a line of defence were adopted fur
him, might in coming to their lordships' house pray for a
good deliverance, not merely from his accuser, Mr. Glad-
stone, but from his friends. (Laughter.) He might re-
peat the Spanish proverb, " Save me from my friends. I
can take care of my enemiesmyself." He (Lord Brougham)
must add that he thought there was no act more without
justification or extenuation of any sort than far one nation
situated as France or Piedmont was to enter upon another
nation, under pretence of improving its. government, and
to seize upon its territory. Under that pretence the greatest
of all crimes in ancient or modern times, the first partition
of Poland, was perpetrated in 1772. And as for the govern-
ment of Rome, even if it were as bad as the atrocious
tyranny of the Bourbons in Naples had been, there was
still no excuse for the partition of Rome. But he heartily
wished that an end could be put to the Papal Government,
which was one of the worst that ever existed, provided it
could be done by the people themselves, and not by foreign
armies. He hoped the day would arrive when they would
free themselves from the bad government under which they
were suffering, and that that would be done by themselves,
left to themselves, without any intervention of others. He
also trusted before long to see the French army withdrawn
from Rome, and the people left to their own free choice of
government.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had no wish to
prolong the discussion, as he understood there was no objec-
tion to produce the despatches he had originally moved for.
He felt mere than ever the necessity for their production
after the very zealous, and of course able advocate, that
Mr. Gladstone had met with in his noble friend. His noble
friend had acted in that precise spirit against the Duke of
Modena of which he (the Marquis of Normanby) complained.
Nothing could be more unfounded than some of the taunts
that had been thrown out against him. As he understood
there was some difficulty about consenting to the immediate
production of the additional papers to which he had referred
in his former statement, ho begged to give notice of a mr
flon for their production on Friday.

allegations 'as they related to him. He denied that Mr.
Irwin was the originator of the Atlantic Mail Steam Packet
Company, and h 3 entered into various details to show that
the other statements were not sustained by facts. 11e stated
also that Mr. Irwin had been convicted for forgery, and
sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, and fined £5O
at the assizes in Ireland in 1835. He said also that Mr.
Irwin had availed himself of the benefit of the Insolvent
Court to get rid of the costs of a suit against him insti-
tuted by him (Mr. Lever).
After some further discussion, the motion was negatived
without a division.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The house then proceeded to consider the Lords' amend-
ments to this bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the house
disagree with the amendments of the Lords which related
to the proposed appointment of a chief judge of the court.
Sir H. CAIRNS seconded the motion, which was agreed
to without a divisicn.

Some of the amendments up to clause 20 were agreed to,
except those in question, which were negatived seriatim.
On clause 21, which related to official assignees,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the house
disagree with the amendments of the Lords to this clause.
Mr. M. SlllTll•contended that they ought to postpone
their decision relative to this clause until they disposed of
some of the subsequent clauses when the whole subject in
connection with official assignees was raised.
Sir IL CAIRNS defended the bill as it originally stood,
and. said it did away with many grounds of com-
plaint in respect to official assignees, because it pro-
posed to remunerate them by salary instead
of by per tentage as at present. Under the arrangement
proposed by the bill, if creditors did not wish to have any
official assignees to deal with the bankrupt's estate they
were not compelled to do so. To some extent he agreed
with the objections that led to the alterations in the other
house in this clause. But at the same time at this period
of the session he could not take on himself the responsibi-
lity of endangering the passing of the bill by offering any
opposition to the clause.

Mr. MALINS concurred with the hon. and learned
member in the opinions which he had expressed, but de-
clined to divide the house on the question, and thought it
better for the house to acquiesce in the motion of the At-
torney-General, and endeavour to restore the bill to the shape
in which it originally left the House of Commons.
Mr. HADFIELD supported the motion of the Attorney-
General, but expressed his opinion that the duties of the
omolca would bo much le3a under thin bill than
they were at present.
Mr. VANCE thought there 'would be considerable diffi-
culty in the working of this clause, and regretted that the
hon. and learned member for Belfast had not given the house
an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the views he
had expressed.
Mr. FORSTER approved of the clauses of the bill
which give a supervision over the conduct of the creditors'
assignees.

Mr. W. MURRAY considered that one official assignee
to each commissioner would be quite sufficient for the trans-
action of tho business, and he thought that £BOO a-year in-
stead of 4200, would be ample remuneration for their
duties. He thought that the time had arrived when credi-
tors should take the estates of the bankrupts and work them
themselves, without incurring the expense and incon-
veniences which would be incurred under the provisions of
this bill. The hen. member referred to the enormous charges
of the official assignees, and instanced a case in which one
of those gentlemen charged for his services, during 10
months, a aunt of more than £4,000. A second assignee
claimed £2,600, but had overcharged the estate in the sum
of more than £l,OOO. His experience led him to the con-
clusion that the administration of the estates of bankrupts
was in no degree better than it was in 1831. He had seen
estates wound up by inspectorship of trustees very much
more efficiently and economically than under the Court of
Bankruptcy.

Mr. GLYN said that the main cause for commercial
classes looking with favour on this bill was the power
which it proposed to give to the creditors' assignees. The
feeling against letting estates falling into the hands of offi-
cial assignees was very strong indeed, and the objections
which had hitherto existed against creditors' assignees were
removed by the proposition of appointing the official as-
signees as auditors for supervisinpi, the work of the creditors'
assignee.

Mr. AYRTON suggested whether some words should
not be introduced into the clause which would have the
effect of preventing any inconvenience resulting from two
sets of assignees collecting the debts, one taking those
under £lO, and the other all debts over that amount.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that official assig-
nees were established in 1831 for the purpose of co -operat-
ing with creditors' assignees, but it had been found that
although the official assignee collected, held, and had the
management of large funds, still no efficient system of audit
existed. The accounts were audited as a matter of form by
the Commissioner, but he had no practical knowledge of the
subject, and the hon. member (Mr. Murray), had given
some instances of the abuses which occasionally took place
in respect to the accounts of the assignees. A return recently
presented to Parliament showed that in the casco of five offi-
cial assignees the defalcations had amounted to the sum of
£120,000. He was of opinion that the creditors' assignee
would bring to the fulfilment of his task great commercial
knowledge, which would ensure the proper performance of
his duty; and care was taken by the provisions of the bill
th It the official assignee should have constant supervision
over the duties of the creditors' assignee. In fact the oppor-
tunities for abuse would not exist under the bill. There was
a great and general desire on the part of the commercial
community that these clauses in the bill, as they.originally
Mood, should be retained. The towns of Belfast, Birming-
ham, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Wolver-
hampton, and other places, were all in favour of the reten-
tion of the clauses, and he was quite sure the house would
vote in their favour.
Mr. BOVILL said there was a strong opinion in favour
of the clauses as they had originally passed the house.
At the same time local chambers of commerce looked at
the matter in a point of view affecting themselves. It
was difficult to lay down any given rule with respect to the
assignees. He should suggest that the collection of the
debts, under and above £lO, should be made elastic ; that
was to say, instead of saying all debts under £lO should be
collected by the official assignee, and all debts above that
amount be collected by the creditors' assignee, the creditors
should be at liberty to determine the precise nature of the
duties which each assignee should discharge.
Mr. HENLEY thought the house should disagree with
the Lords' amendment in this particular clause, seeing that
the commercial public were opposed to it.
The Lords' amendment touching the creditors' assignee
was then disagreed to without a division.
The clauses of the bill were faen gone through.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the house
do agree to several of the amendments of the Lords, and
disagree with ethers, the nature of which he specified.
In every case the motion of the right hon. gentleman was
agreed to.
Sir F. KELLY moved to disagree to the Lords amendment
in clause B, following clause 97, by omitting the words in
line 6, " but no debtor," and theme to the end of the clause
in line 12. There was no power contained in the bill under
which a trader debtor could obtain relief under this clause
as amended.
Mr. MALINS seconded the motion.

Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL was ready to support
the motion. He thought there must have been some over-
sight on the part of those who had introduced this amend-
ment in the Lords. •
After a few remarks from Mr. lIADFIELD, the house
disagreed to the latter part of the Lords' amendment.
On the clause relating to non-traders,
Mr. MALINS objected to the amendment of the Lords,
which restricted the application of the Act to debts and
liabilities of non-traders, incurred before it came into opera-
tion. He would move that the Lords';:amendment be dis •
sgreed to, if ho thought that he would obtain the support
of the house. (Move, move.) He certainly would take
the sense of the house on the question.
After some further conversation,

Mr. VANCE supported the amendment made by the
Lords, because he considered it unfair to make old debts
liable to procedure under this new bill.
Mr. HADFIELD opposed the amendment of the Lords,
but hoped the hon. and learned member for Wallingford
would take the sense of the house on his proposal.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the noble lord
at the head of the Government had stated that the Govern-
ment did not intend to make any proposal with regard to
the amendments now under discussion. Looking to the
state of the house at that moment, and considering that the
hon. and learned member for Wallingford had given no
notice of his proposal, and many members were absent,
relying on the statement of the noble lord, that, as far as the
Government was concerned, no action would be taken to
induce disagreement with the Lords' amendment on this
point, he felt that he could not, with propriety, concur in
the motion of the hon. and learned member for Walling-
foi d. If that, motion was agreed to, and the bill went back
in that shape to the Lords, there was every fear that the bill
would be lost.

Mr. M SMITH thought they ought not to assume that
every debtor who resided abroad did so for the purpose of
defrauding his creditors. He was glad that the Govern-
ment meant to adhere to their original resolution.
Mr. Alderman SY DNEY regretted to hear the Attorney-
General state that he could not vote for the motion of the
hon. and learned member for Wallingford.
Mr. WALPOLE thought they ought not to disagree
with the amendment made by the Lords. The view he
took of the question was, that instead of there being a
measure assimilating the law between traders and non-
traders being a measure beneficial to non-traders, it would
confer great benefit upon them. The law allowed traders
to obtain a certificate if they gave up their property, but
with respect to non-traders it allowed their creditors to keep
them in prison until their debts were paid. It was idle to
contend on behalf of non-traders that this bill would have
a prejudicial effect. He did not wish to make the law re-
e
trospective, because when a great change was made in the,
law on the strength of a pledge given by the Government
of
they
attention
keeping
makepledges.
itFa future ur
pt
thaturer
se
e nc changes
reasona
existed.n g e s
h if
wast h
Te they paidne
house
favourno
with respect to its operation, it was questionable whether

would be unduly taken by surprise if this change was now
forced upon it.
Mr. MALINS said he would not divide the house on his
proposal, as he had not given notice of it.
The house then agreed with the amendment made by the
Lords.
Clause 103 was then struck out.

On clause 105, the amendment of the Lords, relating to
certain county courts, in which petitions for adjudication
of bankruptcy may be filed, was disagreed to.
A number of verbal amendments necessary for carrying
out the alterations made in the former clauses were agreed
to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the appointment
of the following committee for drawing up the reasons of the
house for disagreeing with the Lords' ameudments :—The
Attorney-General, the Solicitor• General, Sir George Grey,
Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Malins.
This motion was agreed to.

The house then went into Committee of Supply.
On the vote of X 100,411 for the British Museum,
Mr. WALPOLE said the increase of £3,300 in this vote
was partly occasioned by the decrease of the head keeper of
the Museum. There was another item of £2,700 for. special
purposes. Last year he had to ask for £3,700 under this
head. The vote now was principally for valuable Oriental
manuscripts belonging to General Taylor. Two committees
had been appointed last year, who made certain recommen-
dations and one of the most valuable reports that ever was
presented to the house. In the drawing up of that report
the late Mr. Braidwood rendered essential service. The
question was, whether the building should be opened in the
evening. Mr. Braidwood said it was one of the deleterious
properties of gas to dry up papers, and produce discolora-
tion ; and that if an explosion tooklplace, the consequences
might be most serious. The consequences were that the
committee reported against the opening of the South Ken-
sington Museum in the evening. There was another report
respecting the British Museum as to the propriety of sepa-
rating or keeping together the whole of the collections. The
Government had been unable to advise the committee upon
that head. Within the last few days some most valuable
collections had been received, and now the question was,
whether the Government could give additional space for
that and the rest of the collection. if the collection were
to be separated, then additional space would be imperatively
required ; if it were to be kept together, then, of course,
the space that would be needed must be confined to its pre-
sent limit.

Mr. GREGORY regretted that the Government had not
thought fit to propose a real enlargement of the Museum.
At the same time he knew the financial difficulty of the
Government, and he would rather that the building should
remain in its present form, than that piecemeal alterations
should be made. He had hoped that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would have proposed to adopt the proposal of the
committee of which he had been chairman, to purchase cer-
tain lands abutting on the Museum, which would have en-
abled them to make the institution one really worthy of
a great country. He had himself last year been of opinion
that the mediaeval collection should be removed from the
British Museum, and to that opinion he still adhered. He
was aware that some difficulty might be started as to an ac-
curate definition of the mediaeval; but, in point of fact, it
would be comparatively easy to settle the question, while,
at the same time, a great deal of amusement and harmless
excitement would be given to antiquarians. He, however,
would strongly insist upon the necessity of preserving in
the British Museum everying which might throw light on
our national history, whether medieval or not. The pro-
posal to remove the natural history collection was, in his
opinion, the most extravagant, the most useless, and the
most unpopular that could be conceived. He regretted that
so eminent a man as Professor Owen should support such a
plan after its absurdity had been pointed out. If Mr. Old-
field's plan had been adopted for the arrangement of the
sculpture, great advantage would be the result, and great
expense would be saved to the nation. He thanked the
Government for improving the position of the gentlemen
connected with the Museum. He regretted that the MUseum
had lost the services of Mr. O'.dfield, and thought that the
trustees might well have acceded to his terms. He had to
congratulate the trustees on their obtaining the collection
of M. Chaillu, and admitted that the conduct of that gen-
tleman had been most liberal. Whatever plan the Govern •
ment might propose next year, he hoped they would never
propose to separate the natural history collection.
Mr. LAYARD complained that, notwithstanding the
important suggestions which had been made by the com-
mittees which had sat on this subject, nothing had been
done. He believed that the trustee system of management
was altogether a vicious system, and that the whole should
be placed under one responsible head. The collections of
Halicarnassus and other marbles were all concealed be-
hind, in a hoarding in the portico, and the rain and soot beat
in through the hoarding on these marbles, and had done
them a serious amount of injury. While this niggardly sys-
tem was going on, the house was perfectly ready to vote
large sums for:purposes of a useless and extragavant nature.
With respect to the collections themselves, he thought they
ought to be judiciously separated, and the plan which he
would propose was to separate the works of God from those
of at t—to have one department of science and one of art,
both perfectly distinct and separate from each other. The
ethnological collection, the dresses of the New Zealanders
and other tribes, ho thought
_could be advantageously re-

moved to some collection at the East-end. There was I; col-
lection of portraits in the British Museum which he consi-
dered might be usefully removed to the National Portrait
Gallery. He did not agree with the proposal to separate the
media val collection, and take one portion to Kensington,
and to leave another at Bloomsbury. The Campana collec-
tion had been lost to the British Museum through the want
of energy in the officers of that establishment, and this was
evidence that some change was necessary in the organisa-
tion of that establishment. At the present time there was
no collection in the world equal to that of the British Ma-
seum, but it was almost useless on account of its bad
arrangements. The system of management was radically
bad. It was now too late in the session to adopt any exten-
sive plan, but ho should feel it his duty next year to bring
forward the whole question, with a view of settling the
matter upon a satisfactory footing, and forming one com-
plete art collection worthy of the country. he reading-
room in the British Museum showed what could be done by
a proper system of adaptation, when not followed by that
great curse of architects. (A laugh.) That was an instance
of what should be done by a man of practical common
sense, and not by an architect, who thought only of his
columns and deiments, and their jimcracks, without paying
any regard to the purposes for which the building was re-
quired. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES also complained of the congestion of

articles in the British Museum, which prevented the spe-
cimens being so useful either for purposes of art or educa-
tion, as they ought to be. The reason of the comparative
uselessness of the Museum was that the Government and
the house had declined to look fairly in the face the ques-
tion of separation, The hon. member for Galwayhad spoken
in the strongest terms against the idea of separation, but he
was, after all, a great separatist himself, though he pro-
posed the factitious division of Christian and Pagan art,
whereas he (Mr. Milnes), and those who thought with him,
were desirous of seeing a broad distinction made between
works of science and those of art. Under the present sys-
tem, the collection of collections was perfectly bewildering
and almost repulsive. He was not disposed to attach much
weight to the objections urged by the late Mr. Braid wood,
on account of the use of gas, as he thought the buildings of
the Museum might be lighted with gas in the same manner
as the Athenaeum club, which was entirely lighted from the
outside, and where no deleterious effects were produced from
that system of lighting. The government of the British Mu-
seum was in the hands of amateurs, and the patronage of
the establishment, from a clerk to a housemaid, was left in
the hands of the Speaker of the llouse of Commons, the
Lord Chancellor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. (A
laugh.) This was a state of things which called for imme-
diate rekrm, and he hoped that the subject would receive
the serious consideration of the Government. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
on the whole the view presented of the British Govern-
ment, the British people, and their Museum, was not en-
couraging if they were to adopt the views of the pessimist
party. (Hear, hear.) ller Majesty's Government was of
opinion that the Museum did require some change, but the
reason nothing had been done was because of the wide dif-
ferences of opinion which prevailed on the subject. It had
been said there should be no " patching." It was, no
doubt, very easy to subscribe to that opinion, but the
question was what this " patching" meant. This
patching might be made to include the addition of the 21
acres proposed by Professor Owen for the natural history
collection. (Hear.) There could bo no doubt that the in-
convenience of crowding in the Museum was very great,
and the Government entertained the opinion that that diffi-
culty ought to be met by some plan that would afford a
large and complete provision for a great length of time.
For this purpose it was necessary that there should be a
separation between natural or scientific objects and works
of art. Her Majesty's Government were not, however, pre-
pared to adopt the suggestions of the committee of last year,
for, though opposed to separation, they did not adhere
strictly to the principle, but had recommended the removal
of the ethnographic collections. It would be the duty of
the Government to consider what would be due to the pub,
lie convenience, and in some respect to the public feelings,
but so to act that it might not be required to undo or alter
in the future what might be decided upon. Neither the
Government nor the trustees of the British Museum would
attempt to do anything which would be in contravention of
their duty to the Rouse of Commons. This, however, he
would say, that the Government did not intend to adopt
the recommendations of the committee. It appeared that
there were in the building of the Museum some portions
that might be remodelled with advantage, and there was
some ground within the precincts of the enclosure of the
building which might be made available for providing fur-
ther accommodation in the Museum. There were also some
portion of the collections which might be removed without
inconvenience to the public or to the scientific world. The
Government thought that there were means of greatly im-
praying and increasing the accommodation in the British
Museum, and there were no reason for at present entertain-
ing the question of the removal of the zoological or natural
history collections. (Hear.) Sufficient time had been
allowed for the consideration cf the report of the committee,
and it would be the duty cf the Government to bring
the
matter under the consideration of the trustees during h

recess, in the hope that they would be able to devise some
plan which would give satisfaction to the house and the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Captain JERVIS wished to know what was intended to
be done with the works of the old masters in the British
Museum

Mr. TITE said that he could not see how it was possible
to carry out the separation of the natural history collection
from the Museum, but thought that the plan proposed by
Mr. Oldfield would provide a very complete and efficient
system, which would afford accommodation chronologically
for the whole contents of the Museum. He did not think
that any smaller plan could be adopted for providing
accommodation in the building, which would not be liable
to the charge of "patching" which had been referred to.
(Hear.) The house should recollect that our friends on
the other side of the Channel gave no less a sum than
136,000 for one picture alone.
Mr. SEYMOUR was anxious that the whole plan of
conducting the Museum should be openly promulgated.
The question of separating the collections was most impor-
tant, and there was no occasion for shrouding it in mystery.
The trustees of the British Museum had lost very valuable
collections, and had allowed those collections to pass into
Hip hands of foreigners. There should be a responsible
Minister of Education in the house, who should have the
whole of this department under his control and responsibility.
Mr. CONINGHAM protested against the present prin-
ciple of purchasing works of art by wholesale, and conten-
ded that sufficient discrimination was not exercised in their
selection.

Mr. WALPOLE defended the appointments of the
various officers in the Museum and the constitution of the
trustees. He believed it was a rash thing to disturb a
government which had been successful, and, therefore,
be was of opinion that it would be injudicious to remove the
trustees. The most important question of all was the sepa-
ration of the collection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's
statement upon that point was satisfactory. The trustees
would consider all the plans submitted to them, and not
shrink from expressing their opinion, leaving the matter in
the hands of the responsible parties. They had obtained
possession of the most valuable collections that ever were
purchased, and they would not cease to render the Museum
every way worthy of public patronage.
Mr. AYR TON expressed a hope that no efforts would be
left untried to keep the Museum open in the evening, for
the amusement and information of the public.
Mr. WALPOLE said this latter question had been seri-
ously considered. He was himself in favour of keeping the
Museum open until eight o'clock in the summer months,
but it was found that the public would not frequent it at
that hour in any very considerable numbers.
The vote was then agreed to, the Chairman reported pro-
gress, and the house resumed.
The Durham University Bill passed through committee
after considerable discussion on various clauses.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

LAW IIV T ELLIG BN CR-July 22.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
MEAD Y. MEAD.

This was a suit instituted by the wife for a dis-
solution of marriage on the ground of her husband's
adultery and cruelty, which was heard on the 27th
of May last, when the petitioner succeeded in
establishing her case. The court subsequently
pronounced a decree nisi, but there had been no
order relative to alimony pendente lite.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., on the part of the petitioner,
now applied to the court to name a day for
awarding permanent alimony.
Sir C. Cresswell said that the petitioner had two
months to make the application, and in the present
state of business, when the Court was going to rise,
he could not accede to an application of this de-
scription.

ROUSE V. ROUSE AND DURRANT.-A CURIOUS CASE

This was a suit by the husband for a dissolution
of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery.
The respondent did not enter an appearance, but
the co-respondent pleaded, and denied the adultery.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. Francis for the co-respondent.
From the evidence it appeared that the peti-
tioner was in the employment of Mr. Smith, a
draper, at Harlestone, in Norfolk, and in 1852 he
and a Miss Carran, a niece of Mrs. Smith, who re-
sided in the house, eloped, and were married at
Stepney in the February of that year. The peti-
tioner at that time was only 18, and the respon-
dent 15 years of age. About a fortnight after the
marriage, as the petitioner had no means of sup-
porting his wife, it was agreed that they should
separate and return to their respective friends.
Accordingly the petitioner went to his family at
Norwich, and the respondent took up her residence
with her uncle at Harlestone, but they were in the
habit of visiting each other until 1854, when the
petitioner went, away for some time, and for 14
months subsequently there was no interview be-
tween the parties. In the early part of 1855 the
respondent gave birth to a child, of which she
stated to two witnesses, Durrant, who was also an
assistant to Mr. Smith, was the father. It appeared,
further, that Durrant was in the habit of speaking
in a " loose manner" to the respondent and romp-
ing with her during the 14 months the petitioner
was absent. The evidence of the paternity of the
child rested on this admission and some collateral
remarks of the respondent as to its resembling Mr.
Durrant in appearance and in a taste for music.
The case stood over for the production of addi-
tional evidence, the learned judge having inti-
mated that he did not consider the case, as tar as it
had proceeded, one in which he should make a
decree.